To whom, exactly? If those jobs are going to people who are moving here from somewhere else, then who benefits? There was a thriving city here long before tech startups came along.

The cruel irony of this kind of job growth is that it doesn't benefit the people who are being displaced. I personally think we need a more balanced approach: we need to build more housing, but we also need to start implementing some disincentives for companies to locate offices in San Francisco. It makes no sense, for example, that we're giving tech companies tax breaks to move their employees here.

That's because they're being displaced. Because there is not enough housing.

There are a lot of benefits to being in a wealthy area even for those who are not the ones with the highest paying jobs, as Enrico Moretti explains in "The New Geography of Jobs".

And if you want to see what an actual bad economy does for people.... check out Greece, or even Italy (which isn't nearly as bad off). It's not pretty.

Nor will there be at any point in the near future, no matter how much housing gets built. But that's a red herring. If the question is "should we favor policies that encourage the tech industry, or discourage it?", you have to do better than arguing that the tech industry is a net good in some ideal world that doesn't currently exist.

SF had a pretty strong economy before tech came along. Saying "tech...or the Greek economy" is clearly absurd.

I think there could certainly be enough housing to help a bunch of people at the margins, especially if density were allowed in a lot of the greater bay area.