Strictly, the entire area is paying the price for the entire area being willing to add jobs but not add housing.

San Francisco is no different from Palo Alto and Mountain View in that regard.

All but about 1/8th of the city is just a sprawling suburb.

Yeah, we have a problem, but razing 7/8ths of San Francisco? Yikes.

Also - there are suburbs and there are suburbs. The excelsior in SF, as an example of a generally SFH neighborhood, has a population density of 17,640/sq mi. Palo Alto has a population density of 2,808.46/sq mi . I think you can make a compelling case that because it is closer to job centers, we should increase density. I don't really object to the use of the word "suburb" to describe the excelsior (or the sunset), but if someone uses "suburb" to refer to a low density neighborhood more typical of what an American thinks of as "suburban" (7/8 of SF is "suburb"), I do think there may be an ambiguity creeping into the argument. The two things are very different.

And if you see streetcars, they blew it worse. Streetcars combine the traffic creation of buses with the inflexibility of a rail line. As an added bonus they make biking extra treacherous.

If you have the budget to build a real buried or elevated rail line, go for it. Otherwise stick with BRT until you do.

Do you feel the same way about other critical shortages that cause massive human suffering?

If you are employed in a tech job somewhere in the United States, , you are very likely in the top 20% of Americans in terms of income, and the top 1% in the world. Perhaps much higher.

I take it you are willing to give all that up in the face of the crushing poverty in the rest of the world.

Bay area housing shortages are nothing compared to the critical shortages that cause massive human suffering in the rest of the world.

None of our mass transit operates near the speed limit anyway, afaik.