The point is that you don't get to keep much of it. Basically, unless you're making >$200k or so (which is def possible and not st all unreasonable for engineers or management out here) , you might be able to save more post-tax post-expenses elsewhere.

The real game to be in here is real estate. Don't mine the gold, sell the shovels.

But people who will basically never be able to make that kind of money don't have that dilemma.

And the "game" for them is simply to survive.

Isn't that a strawman argument though? The discussion is around engineers making the most out of their salary so why would be lump in folks with different education / jobs?

The point is that you aren't more fortunate with a nominally higher salary if your baseline (not luxury) costs consume it all. I'm doing about the same as anyone else who can barely afford to rent a studio and can't afford to have a car or travel.

Someone with a third of my salary gets a house, a car, and more disposable income which goes further. The one area where I'm really blowing them out of the water is my $5/mo health insurance that makes all care effectively free. That's a function of the company, though, not the salary. Our much lower paid, lower skilled workers in satellite offices get the same benefits package.

Sounds like we're talking past each other, then.

The point I'm trying to make is that, thanks in a large part of very some "boom" you and I riding on, a lot of people not only can't afford to live in SF (or other pricier parts of the Bay Area) with a car and travel money -- nowadays, they can't afford to live there at all. Whereas 20 years ago, while it was never easy to make it in the Bay Area -- at least theoretically they could, at their skill and education level.

So while $120k may seem like chump change to you, it'd be a godsend to them. They may still not be able to travel, and they may have to cut back in a whole lot of other areas -- but at least they'd be getting by.

Which is again, the real "game" for most people.