That's everywhere, there are homeless people everywhere. The difference is Silicon Valley feels so guilty about it's wealth it refuses to do the normal things that societies do to prevent people from living like animals because 'rights' or something, so they let drug addicts live in their common spaces without treatment. This normally isn't tolerated in a functioning society where people are pressured into behaviors that are less self destructive.
When someone isn't competent to make decisions for themselves it's ok to pressure them into engaging in behavior that will lead them to get to a condition where they can start to make decisions for themselves. In Silicon Valley they have let their guilt be leveraged by a corrupt government system that lets grifters steal billions of dollars per year in 'homelessness funding'. Those same grifters fund political groups and bribe politicians. Anyone that questions it is accused of wanting to murder homeless people.
You said "there are homeless people everywhere", which is technically true but omits quantity, and especially quantity compared to wealth.
I'm not as positive as you are about what makes California (and Seattle) create/attract so many, but it's definitely an outlier compared to "everywhere".
Yes, if you didn't understand my point: there are homeless people in every society, but most do not have as many as silicon valley because they pressure them into accepting the help necessary to restore their ability to make rational decisions. Rational people do not choose to live outside on the sidewalk like rats, people who are drug addicted and who have untreated mental illness do.
All it takes to be homeless is not being able to afford housing, drugs or mental illness are not required. You really think all it takes is "choosing" and housing will appear for you?
Also, drug consumption and mental disorders is very often a result of being homeless. Try having bad sleep in your comfortable home for a few days in a row and see how quickly your mental stability deteriorates and how many bad decisions you start to take (anyone who has insomnia periods will attest)
This is not substantiated by data or even a plausible theory. The kinds of mental disorders that lead to homelessness are not something you can "catch" from your environment.
I can't find a clear argument from data to dispute what your point, which is good and very plausible, but I also can't find one to substantiate it. What I can say is that most likely homeless women are subject at higher rates to the types of assaults that are more likely to cause PTSD, presumably this would also include transgender MtF and similar groups. For male homeless people the data does not substantiate high enough rates of being exposed the the types of experiences more likely to cause PTSD.
However, female and intersex/trans people are a very small percent of the homeless population. So while PTSD is statistically plausible within that sub-group, we are now taking a moderate percentage that would get PTSD from exposure to a potentially triggering event (say 15%), with a small percentage exposed to that event, among a very small percent of homeless people overall. Just giving this the highest numbers I can substantiate in your favor, it would produce 1.2% to 1.5% of the overall homeless population developing PTSD from triggers that are statistically due to homelessness PER YEAR (aka you can be raped if you have a home, but you are more likely to be raped if you do not have a home). This would accumulate to 4-6% out of about 25-50% prevalence of the PTSD cases found in homeless people. This is significant, so your theory is plausible given the available data.
However it would still mean that PTSD is 5-10 times more likely to cause homelessness, overwhelmingly due it's contribution to rates of hard drug addiction, than it is to be caused BY homelessness.
That's not how it works at all. You can't pressure people into becoming a productive member of society.
What you can do when it already happened is kill them or make them die in some ways, jail them or try to support and/or treat them.
I hope it goes without saying that letting them just die or killing or jailing them is not an option in a western society.
Prevention is much more favorable of course. For example, don't let people become homeless easily. But even then, a significant amount will become homeless.
Until you accept that they didn't 'easily become homeless' the problem will continue. They used drugs and spiraled, usually over the course of many months or years, forced all their friends to turn their backs on them, got kicked out of any living situations they had access to because of drug/alcohol use or theft to support the same and finally ended up on the street.
On the street they have access to almost endless support, at least in Silicon Valley, but much of that support is contingent on things like not openly using heroin or not repeatedly getting so intoxicated that they defecate or vomit on themselves, so they refuse it.
I don't care how liberal you are, no society is functioning when it allows people to get on BART and pee on themselves and defecate on the cloth seats and walk up and down the aisles dripping feces and urine on the floor. That is allowed and nothing is done about it for fear of upsetting homeless 'rights' groups who are funded by the tax dollars meant to help homeless people.
1. Widen the definition of 'homeless' to cover people that nobody would consider homeless in every day language. Include anyone who is staying with a friend, living in corporate housing, staying with a family member, etc. Include anyone you possibly can that is unlikely to be a drug addict.
2. Narrow the definition of homeless. Don't consider people that almost everyone does consider homeless. Make sure to target the subgroups of homeless people that are very likely to use drugs.
3. Narrow the definition of drug use. Make it as hard as possible to count someone as having used drugs. Raise the evidentiary bar so high that even when you have evidence they are a drug addict it doesn't qualify them as a "drug addict" by the studies definition. Bury that definition so it's technically there but you have to go through the study carefully to find it.
Lets pick a study in a big important journal and check it for the above:
How about CASPEH: "Illicit Substance Use and Treatment Access Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness," JAMA, 2025
JAMA is a very prestigious journal:
Who counts as a substance user: Only meth, nonprescription opioids, cocaine/crack count as addictions. Cannabis, alcohol, benzos, hallucinogens, inhalants are excluded.
Someone who has a valid prescription to opiates, even if they are being abused, cannot be methodologically counted as a drug user. THIS INCLUDES METHADONE.
What counts as addict: "Regular" = 3+ times per week. A twice-weekly meth user is 'occasional use'. They might take a gram and stay up for 3 days twice a week, but they are 'occasional user' and don't count in the 37% addict number quoted by this paper.
What counts as addict: Last 6 months only. If you admit you used fentanyl every day for the last 10 years but claim you got clean 181 days ago, you are not a drug user according to this study. If they have been diverted from heroin onto methadone 181 days ago you do not count.
How did they check? They asked each person face to face whether they used drugs and which ones and how often and just took their word for it.
The real numbers from the raw data the study used:
41.6% of homeless self reported 2x per week or more hard drug use before they became homeless.
an additional 23.2% claimed they started regular use after becoming homeless.
That's about 65% already from their own data, 2x what the headline pretends.
Excluding high use subgroups: to be included in the data, the homeless person had to prove they were giving informed consent. Then they additionally had to be willing and able to spend 45 minutes or so filling out the survey. The people with psychosis or who were intoxicated at the time of the interview were excluded. How many people have you walked past and they were incoherent, unconscious, or high? They were ignored in this study.
Homeless people are a better way to keep cowardly minions (I mean, valuable employees) in line than cops. The homeless are an important part of capitalist power structures. They are a visible reminder of the consequences for not meeting quarterly goals.
Homelessness is created by high rents. High rents are created by high local productivity. The people who are productive enough to make it over the rent-bar are housed, and their marginal productivity above the rent-bar serves to raise the rent-bar (talk to any landlord about how they set rent prices: it's the local wages, stupid). This then pushes a greater proportion of people below the rent-bar, and then they are homeless.
There are few places in the world more productive per square foot than Silicon Valley, ergo one must be extremely productive in order to remain housed there, ergo it has an extremely bad homelessness problem.
That's why people making $200k+ (an extremely productive person by national standards) need public housing assistance in Silicon Valley (https://www.reuters.com/article/world/palo-alto-considers-su...). Which of course actually just... raises the rent again...
The charities may be full of grift and whatnot, but you can remove them entirely and you will not solve the fundamental problem.
> High rents are created by high local productivity.
Wrong. High rents have many reasons and also good policies to get them down and have affordable housing for more people, also in otherwise expensive and popular cities.
OP has the demand part of the equation if supply remains fixed. The reason supply remains fixed is the US as a whole made policy changes in the 1970s that slowed down construction, specifically zoning laws and environmental laws swept the country. The 2008 recession also cancelled what little construction remained ongoing for a long time.
When you combine that with spiking wealth in Silicon Valley, you’ve got the perfect storm in Silicon Valley. With OpenAI and Anthropic both based in SF, it’s going to be worse than ever once they IPO.
The equilibrium for new housing construction will always be "just enough to keep it expensive by local standards [i.e. by local wages]." That's especially true with rising labor, material, and capital costs.
It was actually the post-war housing boom that was abnormal, fueled by aggressive federal funding of suburban buildout. US municipalities are now broadly doomed to bankruptcy trying to maintain sprawling infrastructure that was never cost-effective to create in the first place.
Look at Austin TX. Influx of new building, prices stabilized, and now construction is dropping off a cliff. No one can afford to build into a stable or potentially falling local market. Construction will start again when local productivity grows enough for people to bid the prices back up again.
Fundamentally, housing should not be a free market area that is profit-driven. Housing, like energy, food, healthcare and public transport is a basic need.
Therefore, government policies making sure people with lower income can still get housing in a city they grew up in, where they work, live and have family, is important.
Yes, one part of this is also building new housing and making sure that housing is built efficiently in terms of cost (but not throwing them on the free market, but making sure a certain % of it is desginated as social housing).
Rents cannot (at meaningful scale) exceed local productivity, or else there will be widespread vacancies and landlords will reduce their rents.
Rents cannot (at meaningful scale) fall below local productivity, or else landlords will simply raise their rents.
Go talk to a landlord about how they site prices.
Step 1. Look up income of your target demographic
Step 2. Eat 30% of their income
Can you show me a place with high local productivity and low rent?
Can you show me a place with high rent and low local productivity (that's not e.g. a vacation destination for people with high productivity elsewhere)?
You can certainly artificially suppress prices with rent control. But that just gets fed back into the system in the form of reduced supply, so it ends up raising rents on the non-controlled housing stock anyway.
Assume you have an area with a certain productivity and rent. Population and housing are growing at a certain rate.
Now make a law that makes construction cheaper. Or make a law that makes construction more expensive. What happens to rent and mortgages, even though productivity hasn't changed at all?
Productivity (or, rather, wealth) of the occupants is a very strong factor, but it is still just one of multiple factors.
You think you can make a law that sets the price of housing above local wages and stays there?
No, you actually cannot do this in any lasting way.
The price of land would fall to the level required to make it construction viable again. Or the city would be abandoned, which is not generally the outcome since cities have so much shared capital investment that cannot be moved elsewhere.
Vienna? World famous for publicly-funded housing construction?
Try this one: "Create a simple analysis approximating how much higher rents would be in Vienna if not for the aggressive public subsidization of supply"
In any case, Vienna has a good system! But it's not that it avoids high productivity → high rent, it's that it splits rent into subsidy costs and rent.
In other words, the amount of subsidy + rent required will grow with local productivity.
> Rents cannot (at meaningful scale) exceed local productivity
Manipulating the real estate market via direct economic manipulation, collusion, or regulatory capture is so common that the entire concept of manipulating the market to earn higher profits is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking.
It's not just that it can, it's that it does so often it's taught in Econ 101. That you don't know this implies you have never taken an economics class or that you forgot what you were taught, and in the meantime certainly have not spent any real effort in learning about economic theory. I think you read a lot of Ayn Rand and right wing libertarian popular books about the free market and how it's perfect. Stop posting confident nonsense.
No, what's happening here is you misunderstood the quoted text, silly.
The claim is not that rents are always at their optimal or most efficient level - they're not! The claim is that you cannot (at meaningful scale) charge people who earn $1,000/month in income $2,000/month in rent to live in a place. They will have to move.
Did you take any arithmetic classes?
And any case, you should stop mind-reading. You're bad at it. I'm not a Randian nor a right-winger nor a libertarian nor free-market idealist.
Lets say I own 50 properties and I want to charge $2000 a month, and right now I can't because the people willing to rent my properties only make $1000 a month. I can bribe politicians to not allow any new construction of properties which rent between $2000 and $4000 per month. Then I wait 10 years. Now I can charge $2000 a month because I'm not renting to the people that made $1000 a month 10 years ago, I'm renting to the people who have $2000 a month to pay for rent but can't find any other units. This is called rent-seeking. You should read about it.
Your mistake was thinking that I, the corrupt landlord who pays bribes, cares about a macro analysis of every all the properties, or that some analysis about the current distribution of incomes and possible rents will stop me from doing exactly what you say is impossible. I don't own every property in the city, especially the ones that aren't built because I capture zoning, so arguments about average GDP and average rent and whatever else do not stop me. Your analysis is useless.
> Then I wait 10 years [for local productivity to increase, and then I can charge higher prices]
This is the only feature that's relevant. If productivity goes up, you can charge more. If it does not, you cannot.
You may do some corruption or some zoning or some whatever else you want, but at the end of the day, if productivity goes up you can charge more and if it does not you cannot charge more.
Productivity is per-capita. Generally estimated via GDP per-capita.
At year 0 we have 500 people who want $2000 a month homes. In year 10 we have 750 people who want $2000 a month homes. Without changing the income distribution or economic output per person at all (and thus not changing productivity at all by definition) simple population increase will increase demand at every level, and now we have 250 additional people willing to pay $2000 but no increase in apartments formerly high enough quality to demand $2000, pushing $2000 rents down market. In the meantime there were 1000 people able to pay $1000 and now there are 1500 people able to pay $1000. They are likely to be forced out of their current neighborhood, so while they could only afford $1000 before, they will change their behavior and pack more people in by having multiple roommates or converting common spaces or dens into bedrooms. They still pay $1000 but the space formerly rented for $1000 may cost significantly more.
Population increase often happens as a result of more jobs being available. More jobs does not imply an increase in productivity.
Honestly you keep saying productivity, I think you mean total economic output normalized to housing available within a reasonable commute radius or something similar to that. In fact for the same economic output, lower productivity can cause higher rents because you can have more people employed who are forced to pay a higher fraction of their income for housing. Higher productivity at the same total economic output would cause houses to be abandoned as people have to leave to find work. This is less stark than it sounds because of service jobs, but it would still happen.
