It is nearly impossible to build up in Silicon Valley, due to prop-13 driven NIMBY-ism. Thanks to prop-13, most of the people that bought their houses in the 60s and 70s have not been forced to sell due to real estate taxes on their absurdly overpriced homes. These people vote, and they are dead-set against anything that "changes the character of the neighborhood". That translates to anything other than single-story, single family housing.
Add to that the fact that most of the "new" people who would benefit from an increased housing supply are in multiple non-voting demographics (young, non-citizen immigrants of various visa statuses), and the old-timers hold all the political power. Why would they ever vote for anything that might decrease their property values? If you talk to them in person, they will occasionally grumble about traffic, or that they have to drive 1.5 hours to visit their grandchildren (because their children cannot afford to live in the area), but they will not actually do anything to change it. The reliably vote against universal mass transit in the valley, and against dense housing.
The only logical choice is not to play the game at all. Most large employers with satellite offices in other areas of the company do not give an appropriate salary penalty for living in a low-cost area of the company -- at least nothing that resembles the actual cost of living difference between silicon valley and other markets. So the best option is to work for a company where you can transfer to an satellite office in a low cost city (eg, Google Pittsburgh), or to just work for a company that allows telecommuting (which is what I did).
>Most large employers with satellite offices in other areas of the company do not give an appropriate salary penalty for living in a low-cost area of the company -- at least nothing that resembles the actual cost of living difference between silicon valley and other markets.
This has been the case forever though. Back in the 1980s, northern California jobs didn't compensate for higher cost of living even relative to fairly expensive east coast cities. And the cost of living in crappy apartments in Manhattan was a trope back then as well.
Add to that the fact that most of the "new" people who would benefit from an increased housing supply are in multiple non-voting demographics (young, non-citizen immigrants of various visa statuses), and the old-timers hold all the political power. Why would they ever vote for anything that might decrease their property values? If you talk to them in person, they will occasionally grumble about traffic, or that they have to drive 1.5 hours to visit their grandchildren (because their children cannot afford to live in the area), but they will not actually do anything to change it. The reliably vote against universal mass transit in the valley, and against dense housing.
The only logical choice is not to play the game at all. Most large employers with satellite offices in other areas of the company do not give an appropriate salary penalty for living in a low-cost area of the company -- at least nothing that resembles the actual cost of living difference between silicon valley and other markets. So the best option is to work for a company where you can transfer to an satellite office in a low cost city (eg, Google Pittsburgh), or to just work for a company that allows telecommuting (which is what I did).