Sure, but on the other hand I used to travel abroad four or five times a year, inside the US every month or so and my checking account wouldn't even feel the strain.
I don't think that many people stay in San Francisco for the quality of life.
There are a lot of variables in that equation, in some situations people will have more disposable income and some less. Unless you're working at the "Top 10" like this list shows, the added cost-of-living for SF/Bay Area really doesn't leave you with any disposable income.
I'd disagree with that. Most companies in San Francisco/Bay Area pay salaries that more than make up for the increase in cost of living. I used to work at a startup before it was acquired by Google and my salary back then was more than enough for me to pay rent, travel around, eat out at nice restaurants every other day and engage in an unhealthy level of consumerism and still save thousands of dollars each month. Meanwhile, I had friends in Sacramento making ~$80k a year telling me how crazy I was for 'moving to such an expensive city', even though I was saving more money than they could.
Besides, as I said elsewhere, the benefits of living in the Bay Area aren't just that you may make more money, but how quickly you can advance your career. If you wanted to be making the big bucks in any of the big companies, working for a couple of years in the Bay Area will give you a much bigger chance of getting your foot in the door than working for 10 years anywhere else.
Having worked in San Francisco, and other major metropolitan areas (San Diego, Boston) at essentially the same level I have more disposable income in Boston than I did in SF.
But more anecdata I guess. I'd be interested to see a real cost comparison between the areas and the salary differences. Like what are the Top 10 tech companies paying in less expensive real estate markets? What is the median salary there as well?
I don't think that many people stay in San Francisco for the quality of life.