> A secondary factor caused by real estate hyperinflation is that all the stuff that once made the SF Bay Area so interesting has been priced out. I remember the Bay Area in the 1990s. It was a hub not just of tech but of art, music, and culture. It was a magical in a way that's hard to explain today, and I say this as someone who only visited. My main experience of it was from the culture and "vibe" it exported. All that is gone now.

That recapitulates my experience as well from living in SF. There was a feel of the city that has since disappeared. For me the breaking point was in the early 2010s, when I noticed all my nontech friends disappearing - they were getting priced out and moving, mostly out of state. And the conversations in tech changed too, from doing interesting and weird and exploratory things, to conversations about money, getting vc funding, and working on things that will make even more money.

The vibe was turning into a 90s wall street, and not the old city where everybody was a misfit and did their own weird thing. That's probably the part I miss the most.

"Even for young people if you do the math your big Bay Area salary actually doesn't get you ahead as much as a slightly lower salary in a much lower cost of living city."

But that's the point: the difference in rent is much smaller than the difference in market salaries.

"Your whole paycheck goes to the landlord."

If you're an engineer with a $150k salary, which is at the low end for most companies you've heard of that have offices in the Bay Area, then it's very unlikely you spend anything close to your whole paycheck on rent.

Average rent in SF is $3,442. If you want it a bit fancier we're talking about $4,377 for a two bedroom appartment. [1]

In your 150k example you're using 1/3rd of your salary just for rent (assuming you get 150k, net).

[1] https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/sa...

So let's assume you can reduce your rent from $50k/year to $20k/year.

That's a saving of $30k/year, or maybe $40k/year before tax.

From what I understand from reading comments here, salaries in places with lower cost of living are not just $40k/year less, but much much less.

And for those earning more than $150k, the math works out even more in favour of the Bay Area, as the % drop in salary goes up with salary, whereas the $40k rent difference doesn't.

Rent is just the tip of the iceberg, you also have higher taxes, higher entertainment costs, etc. Also, even with a >$200k salary, buying a decent home without a brutal commute can be hard.

If you don't mind living in a rented room or commuting >1hr a day and shop exclusively at amazon and costco, the bay area is a great opportunity to save money.

"Also, even with a >$200k salary, buying a decent home without a brutal commute can be hard."

If you're a software your aim is to buy a decent home in $US_CITY at some point, the easiest way to come up with large downpayment is to work in the Bay Area for a few years. You don't have to live in the Bay Area forever.

You can do that. But to a large extent you are giving things up for that money. Being close to your family, or cultivating friendships have value. So does many other things. I get why people do it, especially since alternatives hard to come by, but it is still a bit of a tragedy. Or at least not ideal.

Rent is the iceberg. Taxes are not much higher than many other places, entertainment costs are very similar to other locales. Cars, computers, international travel, groceries, cost about the same.

State and municipal taxes are much higher than a significant number of USA states and municipalities. Federal taxes are progressively based on income, which is higher in the Bay Area but for this reason its contribution to overall welfare is not that much higher.

True, but those are all marginally higher, not substantially higher. Rent is the only thing that is really high, taxes are kind of meh in California, heck I moved from LA to Seattle and saw my tax bill just shift around a bit.

For the $4300 you mention, I seem to be able to find real houses (1500 sq ft and 3 bedrooms) in downtown Mountain View, presumably a premium location if you work at Google for instance:

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/apa/d/old-mountain-view/667...

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/apa/d/pet-friendly-house-nr...

Sounds good enough to start a family to me.

And of course, once you become a little bit more senior and your salary goes over $200K, you won't mind spending so much on rent and will start saving significantly more than elsewhere.

It's possible that there is a natural filter in play here, with the people whose salary is not increasing significantly basically forced to leave.

There’s a magical place like that today - it’s called Montréal.

I agree for the vibe. But it's not even close to the number of startups or VC funding.

SO maybe there's a few game companies and some AI research. But the math and science base in Montreal, Sherbrooke, UdeM, McGill, CRM is nothing to sneeze at.

> * ludicrous real estate cost is a larger factor than this article implies*

California's housing problem, particularly the Bay Area's, is a symptom of its political dysfunction. The Bay Area's elite consistently optimize for the short term.

The housing policy of the entire state seems geared toward boomers who bought property here in the 60s-90s cashing out on the backs of the young and newcomers.

"Elite" doesn't overlap much with "young and newcomers".

In fairness that group is highly represented in the likely to vote block.