Yes, you're right, more or less. (And this is the reason I edited my post to claim "little advantage" rather than "no advantage" from increased prices, possibly after you replied to it.)
But analyzing the effect you've described is much more difficult than analyzing the effect of price increases in a market in which supply is not artificially constrained: some people have more or less money than others, and are more or less ready to spend it on this or that, for various reasons. And it is not nearly as straightforward to say that there will be a social benefit (in whatever sense you prefer) in letting the highest bidder claim a resource when the proceeds will go fully into someone's pocket rather than when they are likely to lead to higher production of the resource, and thence to an obviously greater social benefit from its higher consumption.
Of course, I expect that you are right in at least the sense you meant: in the presence of a constraint on supply, the price mechanism will still broadly incentivize people who derive a greater benefit from consuming the resource actually to consume it: higher rents will mean more tech types in the Bay Area.
I must point out here that nothing happens in isolation. Higher rents in the Bay Area will incentivize employers to move jobs elsewhere, all else equal. (I have seen several instances of this is my home, Kansas City, which is becoming a popular place to park back-office jobs for San Francisco firms of national scope.) And, yes, providing that incentive to move out is a good thing, relative to the theoretical alternative of paying higher rents without that option, and consequently transferring resources to property-owners with no net social benefit. But it's still a poor alternative to letting higher prices do what they want to do in the absence of artificial constraints: increase supply of a resource whose higher consumption benefits society on net.
Still, if you want to limit development and push people to move to Kansas City because San Francisco's rents are too damn high, please, do. It's a much more appealing place than costal ignorance would lead you to believe, and we will welcome the newcomers.
But analyzing the effect you've described is much more difficult than analyzing the effect of price increases in a market in which supply is not artificially constrained: some people have more or less money than others, and are more or less ready to spend it on this or that, for various reasons. And it is not nearly as straightforward to say that there will be a social benefit (in whatever sense you prefer) in letting the highest bidder claim a resource when the proceeds will go fully into someone's pocket rather than when they are likely to lead to higher production of the resource, and thence to an obviously greater social benefit from its higher consumption.
Of course, I expect that you are right in at least the sense you meant: in the presence of a constraint on supply, the price mechanism will still broadly incentivize people who derive a greater benefit from consuming the resource actually to consume it: higher rents will mean more tech types in the Bay Area.
I must point out here that nothing happens in isolation. Higher rents in the Bay Area will incentivize employers to move jobs elsewhere, all else equal. (I have seen several instances of this is my home, Kansas City, which is becoming a popular place to park back-office jobs for San Francisco firms of national scope.) And, yes, providing that incentive to move out is a good thing, relative to the theoretical alternative of paying higher rents without that option, and consequently transferring resources to property-owners with no net social benefit. But it's still a poor alternative to letting higher prices do what they want to do in the absence of artificial constraints: increase supply of a resource whose higher consumption benefits society on net.
Still, if you want to limit development and push people to move to Kansas City because San Francisco's rents are too damn high, please, do. It's a much more appealing place than costal ignorance would lead you to believe, and we will welcome the newcomers.