Eh, it doesn't really matter what stats you drive from they all paint the same picture. More and more engineers are moving here from San Francisco for that reason. People never report that there leaving net income on the table, especially once they have enough to be comfortable, and most never even search to look.

If you’re looking at $100-150k total comp, and expect to max out there, you should definitely move to Seattle.

If you’re interested in earning $300-400k/year after working for a BigCo for 4-5 years, Seattle isn’t going to work out to a better net savings/year.

I think it’s perfectly fine to max out at $100-150k. You’re still extremely rich by any standard. And startups in The Bay Area will pay you vastly less regardless, so Seattle may well be a better place for startups.

But I think you’re doing people a disservice if you convince them they’ll save more money working in Seattle than the Bay Area.

The same people who make 300-400k in San Francisco, also do so in Seattle. I don't know where your getting your information from, but all existing stats disagree with you for a reason.

And your source for this is... Glassdoor?

I have hired many people who worked for Seattle BigCos, and I know many people who have gotten offers from Seattle BigCos trying to lure them away from the Bay Area.

And I’ve chatted with people doing competitive analysis on what offers to make to engineers.

The Bay Area generally has 20-30% higher total comp after the first 2-3 years.

Somewhat amusingly, the headline salaries are pretty similar, which makes people think total comp is similar. It’s all about the bonus and RSUs.

Even if you were right, and someone made 20% more total compansation, they would loose more than half of that right off the bat due to the mutliple layers income tax in San Francisco, and easily the rest and then some to increased housing cost. Not to mention Seattle tends to have a much more relaxed and healthy working culture, so your probably working less hours too.