The short answer? Most of them don't — at least not "here" in any meaningful sense.

SFO sits in San Mateo County, one of the most expensive patches of real estate in the country. The median rent for a one-bedroom in the surrounding area hovers well above $2,500, and in San Francisco proper it's even worse. Entry-level airport jobs — ground crew, security screening, food service, custodial work — typically start somewhere between $18 and $25 an hour. Do the math. Even at the higher end, you're pulling in roughly $52,000 a year before taxes. That doesn't come close to comfortable in a region where "affordable" housing is a punchline.

So what actually happens? People commute. A lot.

As one Bay Area resident put it: "My friend that works at SFO commutes from Richmond. In fact, all my friends who work there commute from the East Bay. Even outside of SFO, all my friends who work in SF outside of a few live or commute from elsewhere. SF is just too expensive for most."

That Richmond-to-SFO commute, by the way, is about 35 miles and can easily run 60 to 90 minutes each way during peak hours. That's two to three hours a day spent just getting to and from a job that barely covers the bills — in a cheaper city.

This is what happens when housing policy fails for decades straight. The Bay Area has spent years layering regulations, permitting delays, and NIMBY-approved restrictions on new construction while demand has only grown. The result isn't some abstract policy debate — it's a baggage handler driving from Antioch at 4 AM.

We talk a lot about the tech economy, the knowledge workers, the downtown recovery. But the backbone of a functioning airport — and a functioning city — is the working class. And right now, the Bay Area's message to those workers is clear: we need you here, but we won't let you live here.

That's not a labor market problem. That's a government failure.