Sounds like you’re insightfully suggesting that I do the thing which I just told you I already did- moved away and bought elsewhere. How clever!
What you’re of course missing is that “market correction” generally means people being economically hurt. “Market correction” is usually a euphemism for “there’s nothing left of my 401k.” In this case, a “market correction” will eventually mean that Silicon Valley is no longer the capital of innovation for the world, as people can’t take it here and move the locus of tech elsewhere. Have you thought through what that would do to people’s property values here? You think anyone will still want a run-down shack for a million dollars if Google moves to Seattle? And then of course, what you’re missing is that moving has tremendous costs and I don’t just mean the costs of hiring movers and vans. Silicon Valley is as productive as it is because of network effects. And as it slowly flows elsewhere, there will be a loss of those network effects that will result in less job growth and less new company formation during that period. In fact, NIMBY policies are already costing the country billions every year as companies have jobs to fill and can’t fill them because of housing costs and potential employees want the high paying jobs but can’t afford the housing. Studies on this say that NIMBY policies are costing us the equivalent of the entire GDP of Canada every year already. As jobs flow out of Silicon Valley, that will translate directly into a smaller GDP for the country as a whole and it’ll translate into less technological progress during that time. And lastly, it’s not clear why a shift to another location would yield different results. So far Seattle has been better about adding housing and growing than SF, but there’s no guarantee that that will necessarily continue once large companies shift their headquarters en masse. And then what? We just perpetually decide that it’s ok for NIMBYs to hurt our economy because their desire for boring surburbs outweighs the needs and desires of a new generation and a new, knowledge-based economy? For how long will social security and pension-drawing baby boomers be allowed to keep strangling the younger working generation, which already knows it will never see SS or a pension, and will instead be busy spending trillions trying to deal with the global warming the boomers created?