Now, we could reform our policies so that the landless get a fair shot, but realistically, what are the chances of this happening?
And if that happens to an extreme degree where it becomes unsustainable, maybe an HQ3 would be in order?
Anyone wanting to live in Nashville (just to pick one city from the list) who's capable of working for Amazon is also capable of working for someone in Nashville today. And generally, the economics of being tech talent outside these hotbed markets like SV and Seattle are vastly favorable.
That is to say, you're probably better off buying the cheap house in a smaller market on the salary you can command in that market than you are buying a very expensive house on the salary that the very expensive market offers you. Google would pay me more than my current job, but my cost of living would go up by more than my salary -- massively so.
But you can only sell a house once so it's the rising tide isn't really raising their boat like it is for the tech workers. It's more akin to winning a scratch ticket that also forces you to move and maybe get a new job.
Well then you just pass something like Prop 13. Oh wait...
So what? My taxes go up and so do the costs of all the other houses nearby, so I don't net any more if I sell and buy a new house.
The local government represents the current residents, not future ones. Raising house prices could be a windfall for current homeowners, but it could negative for the broader group of local residents, which will likely have a lot of renters.
Heavily inflated house prices could also be bad for the current homeowners, who may get stuck in their current home because they could no longer afford the price difference for a needed upgrade. Their kids may be forced to move away because they can't find homes.