Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco

What country is that? Sure isn't the U.S.

Rather, tech workers in San Francisco trend more liberal. This is because the city generally trends liberal; it's not specific to tech workers. Outside of that bubble, tech workers are the same as anyone else.

The largest single employer of tech workers in the world is probably the US military, and those tech workers definitely don't trend liberal.

I guess everyone is entitled to interpret words however they like, but the salient attribute of a startup is exactly what the word means: it's a new venture. And from the perspective of a landlord, that's what matters. New companies are the least predictable in their needs, their revenue stream, and their long-term prospects. They tend to have inexperienced managers and flighty owners. All of these things are true regardless of how they are funded, what industry they operate in or whether the owners are trying to become huge overnight, bootstrap into a comfortable living, or whatever else.

Established companies grow and shrink, too. They close offices and factories, open new ones, and occasionally file for bankruptcy protection. But they do these things much less frequently than a new company, and they do it with the backing of a much larger and more reliable cash flow. That cash flow means that even in bankruptcy, an established company's creditors usually end up with a significant recovery. From a landlord's perspective, these are the things that make established companies more attractive than startups. Thus, in this context at least, "startup" means nothing but "new company" and carries none of the other connotations that most people here assume when hearing the term.

A couple days for a conference.

From what I've read in this topic and elsewhere, the cost of living is very high.

I'd rather not live in a city with as much of a chance of an earthquake as SF has. Living in a known disaster area just seems kinda off...

Then there's just personal preference.

I live in a city of less that 200K, and I find it to be larger than I like. The other day I hit stop and go traffic in a larger city, and found myself wondering why anyone would subject themselves to that on a regular basis. Or subject themselves to crowded mass transit systems, those crowds are a big part of why I use my car instead in my city.

And so on...

I don't think more fiscal transfers are the answer. If you took an even bigger chunk of money away from SF, you might succeed in reducing the rate at which real estate prices there are driven upward. But air-dropping that money in Akron will probably serve only to drive up real estate prices in Akron, which doesn't really solve anything (in particular, it does not increase output).

The problem here is twofold: first, not enough of the money being created is flowing into operating assets; second, the operating assets being purchased with this money aren't productive. This seems like an obvious and natural consequence of a service economy, in which the dominant inputs are labor and real estate. When you pay higher wages, that money has to go somewhere. Some of it goes toward consumption, but most is surplus and gets invested. It has the same problem it had when it was created: it can go toward real estate, operating assets, or portfolio investment. No one wants operating assets in a service economy (because they're not productive), so it ends up in real estate or portfolio investments. That drives up asset prices but does not increase output. Diverting more of this money into operating assets (things that make stuff) would increase output and alleviate the pressure on asset prices. Instead it goes into more wages (paying people more does not make them produce more) and real estate (paying more for land or office space does not make it produce more, either). One of the few bright spots was oil, but the sharp drop in prices has made investment there unattractive as well, and has reduced nominal output at the same time.

The central bankers can control the rate of asset price inflation by making money cheaper or more expensive, but they can't do anything to increase output when the money they create is used primarily to acquire nonproductive assets, or to acquire at higher prices assets that are already being fully utilized. That's why real estate is expensive and output is stagnant, and why fiscal transfers won't solve anything.

Any number of solutions suggest themselves: relaxing regulatory requirements to make manufacturing, utilities, and other non-service industries more productive; fixing China so that surplus cash in the US can be invested in operating assets there instead of domestic real estate; fixing laws that limit the supply of real estate, both to directly reduce the price and to make it less appealing as an investment; investing more tax revenue in infrastructure instead of transfer payments to individuals (where much of it ends up in ... real estate); radical alternatives like breaking up the United States into separate nation-states that are more cohesive internally. I'm sure you can think of others as well.