Read through previous posts. Plenty of data for verification.
However, the point of recent posts is not that. Is about risk management through diversification by holding a few properties instead of one assuming the capital appreciation is the same. Capital appreciation and cap rate would alter the return comparison but the point about risk management is valid. Have to hold other info the same for comparison of a metric of interest.
Since I am here, there is one point to be made.
One have to buy $1.5M shack as Primary in SF because of job and school.
However, buying a $1.5M shack for rental is not wise from a risk management perspective.
Will it make more sense if I modify the earlier words:
Instead of buying a single 1.5 M property in SF bay area, one can buy three 500K properties in Texas, and still earn the same return over the same period of time, at far lesser risk?
Remember I am referring to rental not Primary. The risk I want to mitigate is those arising from vacancy and sudden liquidity requirements. Of course, the example is relative e.g. if you are that rich, instead of buying one $15M property in Hollywood for rental, buy 10 in SF Ideally the return of both places should be about the same, if latter has a higher return, then is a bonus this happen to be true for Austin for the recent two years, prices in SF declines while those in Austin increases.
Btw, @wuqijun chooses East Bay instead of Austin to achieve the same risk management.
Startups are risky. That’s been true since the beginning of time. They go to lower low so some can go to the highest of highs. SF and SV are particularly good at being risk tolerant towards startups.
The move from SV to SF is secular. Because of cloud, startups don’t need to have their own servers. They don’t need as much space that means they don’t need to be stuck in the suburb. Young people without family get bored in the suburb. What can you do on a Friday night in Cupertino if you are young and single? Nothing.
Also we are now past the first wave of tech revolution that have tech startups building tech for tech. Software is eating everything so we need domain expertise in things like fashion, entertainment, finance etc etc that can be more easily found in SF than South Bay.
None of these is changed by Covid. There is already a lot of signs pointing to people saying fuck it, I just want to live my life. Things are returning to normal in a vengeance. This morning there was traffic jam getting on the bay bridge, the first since SIP.
Don’t count against human nature is all I can say. Young people still want to go to bars and get laid. Like Bezos said, focus on the constants, the things that will stay the same.
The assumption in the argument above is that most people working for startup are single and that all singles want an urban lifestyle? Are these two fair assumptions?
This is the doomsday statement about SV. A designer friend of mine who’s a long time Googler is “stuck” (his words, not mine) at Google because he has a house in San Jose, and can’t find another job in SV. If you’re excited about building a new consumer product, there aren’t many choices in SV.
Another allure for SF: In SF, people are still foolishly chasing paper money while renting. SV used to be like that, but not any more - status in SV is defined by the school district your sfh is at. That’s not the mentality where new money is created.
I have always been cheering for SJ to step up to the big city league. I guess it’s never meant to be. It just doesn’t have the city vibe so apparent in SF. Even SF is small beer compared to NYC and seemingly getting more and more single dimensional over time - all things tech all the time - but still it’s a proper city, whereas in SJ it can’t shake off that suburby feel.
I suspect the success of SF may habe been boosted by lack of proper large businesses in the peninsula. Near SJ, many nearby cities (PA, Mtv, sunnyvale, santa clara) have successful tech shops, that no one bothers to frequent SJ other than occasional binge drinking in Santana Row. Near SF, all surrounding cities are effecticely bedtown communities that people have no choice but to commute to SF. We see similar things happening in Oakland / Berkeley.
Ergo, I don’t think SJ will ever become a proper city. The Google SJ campus may change that, but that’ll take at least a decade.
And the sentiments may be turning away from the high-density urban core. They used to call LA metro as a city without a core. But that slogan is becoming old and not convincing anymore. Urban sprawl is here to stay. The question is how badly do you need a downtown (a cluster of highrise buildings packed in a few city blocks)?
As long as both husband and wife commute an urban core may not mean much of a benefit unless they work in the same place. For working couples, stay at home work is a major benefit.
Ideally the return of both places should be about the same, if latter has a higher return, then is a bonus 
and you like to twist what I said about 7x7 to Bay Area 
