No amount of money can fix humidity, lack of sunshine, or lack of mountains/ocean and the corresponding activities possible with them (or whatever other natural feature one prefers). Saudi Arabia and UAE can spend all of their natural resource wealth building shiny buildings, but it's still a desert. Also, no one has the amount of wealth needed to stabilize a whole country to make it politically stable and secure.

To be very honest weather is the least of the concerns. Otherwise other cities wouldn't have gatherings of people.

Nobody is saying they should put all the money into turning a developing country in the USA, but maybe they can, I don't know, try other cities around the valley and not get crammed all together into one city that's naturally restricted in growth

Those other cities around the valley are just as NIMBY and impacted as SF is, and the problem is even worse because the local governance structure is fractured. Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Cupertino are all separate cities with their own mayors and councils and zoning restrictions

California is not only the valley

San Diego is pretty good and not that far :)

More than half of San Diego renters spend 30%+ of income on rent, making it one of the least affordable areas in the country.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jan/03/more-half-san-diego-co...

and that is why San Diego rents are heating up.

Talk about heating up! My rent in Carmel Valley increased by 10% last month!

If you want to sell software, it's good to be situated physically next to the biggest software companies in the world. I work in the Valley (but live on the East Coast), and having your company immersed in that culture can have benefits. There is a certain perception that persists, a certain level of legitimacy you are granted just for living alongside the Big Boys. Along with the accompanying downsides, of course. The answer to why VCs stay in the Valley is because it's been working for them.

Rent is just another overhead. What good is it to save 50% on investment by moving to the middle of nowhere when you can't readily hire anybody?

Sure enough, other cities are up and coming, but it takes time.

The problem is that outside of a few tech hubs, most companies are unwilling to pay developers salaries that even come close to what they can make in a tech hub. So the best developers move to the tech hubs, where the jobs tend to be more interesting and pay better. Plenty of people would take a 25% pay cut to live in a cheaper city than SF, but the reality is that they might have to take a pay cut of 50% or more, and even when you adjust for cost of living, that sort of pay difference is still dramatic (housing might be cheaper in many cities, but car ownership, healthcare, groceries and your kids' college tuition are largely the same).

You don't even need to move to the middle of nowhere. Basically anywhere else would work. Even San Diego is rather substantially cheaper than the SF bay and the weather there is orders of magnitude better.

San Diego has the tenth highest rent in the US and while it may be cheaper in absolute terms, the average salaries are lower too.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/real-estate/sd...

Sure, I'm not saying pay people the local prevailing wage. I'm saying pay people the same and let them keep way more of that money, or hire more devs, or have nicer offices, or whatever. Just stop handing it to landlords in the Bay.

Great point, something I've wondered myself. You'd think with the immense amount of money and influence tech companies and VCs wield, they'd do more to out-lobby the NIMBY homeowners and get denser housing approved.