> move half-way across the country

You don't have to move half-way across the country. Pick any high rent location in the United States, there's a lower rent location 30 minutes away. SV included.

And now you've added another hour's worth of commute every day and are paying more in transportation costs. People are already being forced to do this and it's not that uncommon to see 2+ hour one-way commutes in the Bay Area now. This is clearly not sustainable long-term and is not a good solution for people's welfare, nor for the environment, nor for traffic congestion.

Plus when you land there, you won't be getting help or support. So toss all your support network for more space. For some that's reasonable, but for many it is not, and presuming that it's their own 'fault' for not moving is not charitable.

That’s what most of the immigrants in Silicon Valley went through..and it seems like they have thrived and haven’t perished due to the move.

> odds are good their salary where they're moving to is less

so you're saying they are already getting the highest salary they could've gotten then (adjusted for cost of living etc)?

> this solution isn't highly scalable; only so many people can do it

If people move away enmass, then the demand for said worker increases, which should (at least, under the great invisible hand!) increase the salary, and a new balance reached. So it should only take a small % of people moving away due to low pay to affect the pay.