What you're saying is, essentially, if a company is making a lot of money, then they should give that money to their employees. But the purpose of a company isn't to hire or pay people, it's to generate a return for your investors.
The problems come about when the dispersal of wealth and power are faked. (No real power is dispersed.)
It's a big economic disadvantage. Your property depreciates rapidly. Meanwhile, you're still paying rent, and it's easier to get evicted.
What do you propose to replace them with?
How about communities of low cost housing, which allow for lower income people to build equity and which are somehow distinct enough to preclude co-option by well heeled tech employees? Maybe some kind of intentional community with such goals built into its charter?
Homes.
Because almost any other entity could claim it's economic pressure and financial reality.
Google is sitting on Fort Knox, they're one of the most cash flush companies in thew world ... and they can't be bothered to actually hire people.
At the last G event, Sundar brought out this hyperbolic weeping montage about how their AI helps poor people in India 'read' the cooking directions on food labels, even when they are illiterate (i.e. AI text to voice).
It was gushy and pulled hard on heartstrings.
Well then why can't they just hire people and treat them as human equals?
It's beyond hypocritical.
With a little bit of cynicism, it's understandable from a business perspective - hey, it's money.
But what irks me is the elements of 'social justice' coming out of these entities while they're blind to the very social ills that they are driving.
People wonder why we have inequality, or 'housing affordability' etc. - well - this is it.
Folks in the Valley seems to be stoked to solve big problems and work on 'AI' - while kind of ignorant to the fact there are trailer parks all over the Valley. Which is mind blowing.