Yeah, every time I go home to the Georgian suburbs I have to patiently explain that—while San Francisco certainly has its fair share of obvious and well-publicized problems—if it were really all that bad, people wouldn't be lining up to pay exorbitant amounts in order to live there.

I thought the high prices were due to wealthy startup employees needing to live in the area.

Are they lining up really, any more? I know some tech companies are trying to coerce people back into the bubble, and force them to cram into a narrow valley in central CA, where high rises are generally shunned, just so they can spend 10-20 hours a week commuting into an open office distraction zone, but, remote work is sticky. People are not coming back in the numbers they were. And it's no longer difficult to raise money outside of Silicon Valley either. The next gen of startups will begin as remote companies and will remain as remote companies throughout their existence.

Feel like the cultural center of gravity has left CA and it's in the early stages of a long decline. Detroit once had similar prominence in industry as the valley did for the past few decades. Motor City was a booming hub of manufacturing and music. And over the course of a few decades, it deteriorated. Jobs left. Local government got dysfunctional. Manufacturing left. Crime soared. Houses abandoned. Property values fell on relative and absolute basis.

At any rate, CA is running on the fumes of its former self, when it was younger, more agile, less burdened by dysfunctional politics, had more opportunities for young people and young families.

CA is a naturally beautiful state. But it's got deep-seated issues and there's almost a sense of an unfixable malaise, living there.

> Are they lining up really, any more?

The fact that people are paying the rents being asked is more or less tautological proof of this.

Judging by property prices, ie supply and demand, California has nothing to worry about.