You assume the companies are the source of the shenanigans, which I disagree with. It seems counter productive for a tech company to want their worker's cost of living to be higher, as that just means they will cost more.
The reality is the companies create a large inelastic demand for living space, and the local government and property owners of exploit that for profit. If you just create adequate supply (build residential), or constrain demand (don't build office space), the problem doesn't happen.
They have the same general characteristics as the local NIMBY class, but I think I'd want to see more evidence that they are actually members of that class. It's a substantial accusation to make without evidence, especially since you purport to link that to tech companies being NIMBY by policy -- again, a claim I've not seen evidence for.
Only one half of the equation (new residential) is affected by NIMBY-ism. No new residential is fine, just don't build more office space then. That requires local governments not to endlessly expand spending though, so obviously impossible.
I really hope the employees who follow don’t vote like they did in CA. I’ve seen first hand the effect that had on politics in WA. I hope TX avoids the same fate.
Well they don't. If you look at polling from the last election, what is turning Texas blue is hispanics turning 18, what's keeping it red are people moving into Texas.
A WSJ reader letter welcomed a fleeing VC but stated, "I would only ask Mr. Lonsdale and his fellow economic migrants to carefully consider that they are arriving as refugees, not as missionaries."
