They have figured out what they want. Unfortunately, that's turned out to be getting all the money from tech employment while not letting the tech employees have any say.
This is pretty much how the politics have played all over the Bay. Non-tech residents are happy to have the tax revenue of tech workers, but don't want to change anything to meet the wants or needs of tech workers. SF is the clearest example.
Most of the non-tech workers see the only "benefit" of tech workers as higher rents and higher cost of living. Your average worker at Target isn't getting paid a lot.
Sure the business owners and landowners are loving it - but those are the minority. In MV, even Googlers are showing up at housing meetings complaining about the high rent.
This is going to sound callous and compassion-free.
The average worker at Target is benefiting by continuing to get paid at all. They're also benefiting from the continued level of funding to city services from the tax revenue of tech.
The tech industry is one of the big reasons that SF didn't suffer economically as badly as many other big cities did.
> This is going to sound callous and compassion-free.
A good sign that you should check what comes next. Because it probably is callous.
> The average worker at Target is benefiting by continuing to get paid at all. They're also benefiting from the continued level of funding to city services from the tax revenue of tech.
Yeap, you are right: callous.
> The tech industry is one of the big reasons that SF didn't suffer economically as badly as many other big cities did.
One little problem with the hypothesis: non-tech workers have stagnant wages. So non-tech workers would have been better off with the tech industry shrinking so that housing prices would drop ( or at least flatten out ).
