How do you arrive at that conclusion? Where does this assumption that your company should be paying you enough to rent a 1BR in one of the most competitive markets in the country come from? This is as baseless as the complaining from the people who claim that tech workers are displacing them (from SF) by paying market rents. They don't have an unlimited right to rent in whichever neighborhood they want, and neither do tech workers.

If you work for a tech company in SF and want to save money, live in the suburbs: that compromise has always existed. Or if living in SF isn't your thing, go live in Minnesota and take a $90k job, but spend $1,000 on rent. Nobody's saying living in SF is unilaterally better here, but I really don't understand why it's considered inadequate for a company not to peg its compensation to the price of a 1BR rental, regardless of market conditions!