Location isn’t fungible, people generally need to be geographically located close to their work, family, etc.
What makes more sense, for the state of California to massively increase teachers salaries just so they can afford a basic house, or allow yourself to have a few more neighbors?
At this point it’s pretty obvious what your answer will be so consider that a rhetorical question.
Ive seen this 'people need to live near work' argument, but I don't know what its based on. If a teacher has to commute an hour, they will commute an hour. If a bartender has to commute, they will commute. Wouldn't it be better to make transportation cheaper and easier to use? That way people could live where they can afford, and still work in another place. I don't understand why people have to subsidize someone living close to their job.
What makes more sense, for the state of California to massively increase teachers salaries just so they can afford a basic house, or allow yourself to have a few more neighbors?
At this point it’s pretty obvious what your answer will be so consider that a rhetorical question.