I'm not sure what you're getting at--people don't complain about stocks increasing at that rate because they aren't negatively affected by that. When housing increased a rate that significantly exceeds that rate that wages increase, people will have to leave and the social structure of the city changed drastically when only a certain type of person (in the case of SF, typically wealthy, male, and childless) can live there.
That article also has this to say, directly to the point at hand:
> The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully.
So I'm not sure what you mean to prove by citing it. If you mislike and mistrust gendered rhetoric, you're welcome; so do I. But perceiving a lack of intellectual consistency on the part of one's interlocutor is no cause to hold oneself to a similarly weak standard.
You are correct, but it's understandable that people would be more emotionally invested in where they live, or would like to live, than in their stock portfolio. You need to live somewhere, but you don't need to invest in the stock market.
Also there's the wrinkle of the down payment, mortgage interest, property taxes, and maintenance. You aren't required to save up $200,000 down and borrow $800,000 to buy $1 million worth of stocks at once. The most I've ever had to save up was $3000 for a Vanguard fund and then you can dollar-cost average your investments after that.
Returns on property in SF, on the other hand, will almost certainly require paying tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest, property taxes, and maintenance. This reduces the rate of return below that of stocks.
However, you would have these costs elsewhere, just lower.
I'd be really interested in an analysis of this problem of stocks vs. Bay Area real estate. This analysis would take into consideration the real rates of return, financing costs, rent lost while saving up a down payment, salary differentials, career risk due to job concentrations, mortgage default risk due to career risk, and loss risk due to lack of dollar-cost averaging.
I suspect that living outside the Bay Area and investing in stocks would come out ahead up to a certain income level, which is attainable for only a small number of people (probably smaller than the number of people who think they can handle it and are discounting certain risks/being irrationally optimistic).
The contrast between asset classes is that real estate allows for a much greater degree of leverage than the stock market does. "Margin calls" are not instant as housing price fluctuations are slower and repossession is a long process, allowing people to catch up longer. And there are several cash flow opportunities.
