> Basically, if you're not actively working in tech or servicing tech companies, it doesn't make any sense to remain in the Valley.

From a game theory perspective, certainly not. The danger is: what happens when all the tech employees suddenly don't have any Uber drivers, any paramedics, any supermarket vendors, hell any cleaning personnel any more? When their homes get raided by criminals because cops cannot afford living in SV any more? When their kids have nowhere to go to school?

That's the thing why the Free Market does not work for basic human necessities. If the Free Market would do its job Walmart and Amazon employees wouldn't be forced to top their "wages" up with food stamps and other social benefits.

The free market handles these factors just fine. If Uber can't find any drivers in the bay area they'll up their prices and pay drivers more. If municipalities can't find people to provide government services, they'll increase wages. That's why BART janitors pull six figures.

> The free market handles these factors just fine.

Then do tell me why companies like Amazon and Walmart get away with, essentially, state subsidies for their employees and why in many parts of the US teachers complain about being massively underfunded, to the point of Oklahoma switching to 4-day school days so teachers can work on the side to earn money?!

Amazon and Walmart don't receive subsidies. Their workers receive subsidies. You may be tempted to ask, "why don't we make Amazon and Walmart pay wages that put workers above the poverty line?" The likely answer is that this would put the companies at a competitive disadvantage and they would end up laying off much of their workforce to stay in business. And now the government is paying an even bigger unemployment subsidy to these former workers.

As for Oklahoma, that's the voters making the decision that cutting school hours is a better choice than to increase teacher spending. Sure you and I don't agree with this choice, but elections say Oklahoma voters do.

To paraphrase Morty, “That sounds like getting subsidies with extra steps.”

Then let me spell it out more explicitly. Some company pays their employees $10 an hour. This isn't enough to get by on, so the government give each of them an extra $2 an hour to spend on necessities (I know, most welfare systems don't pay out hourly just bear with this example). Who is helped by this extra money? Not the company. If you cut the welfare, the company's profits (or losses) remain exactly the same. Their workers will lead worse lives and experience greater hardship. The workers don't find other jobs. If better paying jobs existed they would have taken them already. Thus, it's not a subsidy for the company. It's a subsidy for the worker. Eliminating welfare has zero impact on the company's profits.

This is why making companies pay tax penalties if their workers are on food stamps is a terrible ides. It'd make employers more wary of recipients of welfare, thus making it even harder for poorer minorities, single mothers, etc. to find jobs. And not to mention, it'd create further incentive to outsource or automate these jobs.

The free market would have developers building housing here.

> The free market would have developers building housing here.

... for rich people, not the poor. There is no profit in building affordable housing when one can extract ten times the value from luxury building.

My father was a builder (albeit in a different country) but affordable housing (or standardized apartments) are actually a builder favorite. They are quick to turn around, no architects involved and require smaller capital outlays/financing. Sure he might make less but it's easier money. As long as some one is paying I think the free market will build it.

You can do affordable housing when the building ground is cheap. Once you hit a certain floor (Munich & Berlin routinely do), affordable housing simply is not financeable.