The problem is that I've seen the pay difference be far larger than that. I worked in the midwest and people getting paid $100k moved to the bay area for $300k+

No, it doesn't. Or, rather, it doesn't while also leaving the same amount of money for savings and discretionary spending: which is the same thing. It may get you a bigger house, but you pay for that in terms of opportunity (not just jobs, but savings, culture and recreation).

Only if you disregard things like weather, things to do, proximity to great nature, and maybe not even then.

Maybe Indianopolis isn't the perfect example for everyone. Portland, perhaps. Better proximity to great nature, still a lot of things to do, great weather (and getting better every year thanks to climate change, while California gets drier and drier), somewhat lower cost of living, etc.

Portland sees the same cost of living trends as the Bay Area, so enjoy the arbitrage while it lasts I suppose. (For what it’s worth, so does every similarly desirable metro area in the USA outside of Houston.)

Agreed. We jokingly (and sometimes not jokingly) talk smack to Californians moving north to Portland in hopes they won't come, because along with the steady influx of people comes steadily increasing housing prices. As much as I have said for years I never want to live some place like Seattle, I have to admit that Portland isn't really that far behind.

If you do that you also have to disregard the other myriad ways in which Indianapolis is a better place to live than SF.

The weather in Indianapolis is tolerable most of the year.

Their biggest problem is that they are on Eastern time, despite being way too far west for it, observe DST, and start public schools way too early.

Also, they have developed traffic circle cancer all over their north side.