Inequality in San Francisco

Article: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2164220,00.html

How interesting that nearly all evidence of inequality is caused by the government b/c the free market is not allowed to work:

• Not enough affordable housing, yet zoning restrictions and rent control continue to hinder new development while limiting housing flexibility and discouraging home ownership
  
• Not enough good paying non-tech jobs, yet we criticize, demonize, and seek to raise taxes on local businesses (including taxes on private buses in the name of "fairness")
• The entire article is about how stuff is too expensive, yet one of the solutions is to raise the minimum wage nearly 50%.  Do we not think that increasing the cost of low-skill labor will increase the cost of everyday items?  If we were able to make items more affordable by raising the minimum wage, then why not $50 an hour or $100?  Two reasons: first, raising the minimum wage reduces employment opportunitie, as companies hire fewer workers.  Second, increasing the minimum wage raises the cost of production, increasing the cost of items for all consumers.  There is no free lunch; at the end of the day people will (and should) be paid for the value of the work they produce.  The value of that work is determined by the supply and demand of the labor market (see previous comments regarding minimum wage).  

Favorite quote: "There's been this debate of people with more wealth saying, 'Well, if you don't have enough money, then you need to move to a cheaper city,'"..."That's not taking into account their roots, their community, their needs, or anything else."  Actually, it is taking "anything else" into consideration, namely the concept of individual liberty and the laws of supply and demand and the economic efficiencies that allow for growth to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of citizens.  And since when is ownership determined by "roots" or "needs"?  By that logic, the Native Americans own all this land and all of you must move.  Also not sure who speaks for "the community"... 

Admittedly, the cost of living is likely to rise as wealthier individuals move into an area with geographic limitations on expansion.  Some lower income citizens will be affected.  Now, even though the wealthier citizens did nothing wrong, illegal, or predatory, do we view it as the government's job to protect poorer citizens from experiencing any changes even through those government protections will require infringement on the freedom, economic growth, and well-being of all other citizens in San Francisco?