> I don't actually know many people who think that access to Bay Area amenities is the highest and best use of a tech salary.
A lot of things are kind of hidden, they don't become an issue until they're gone. People may not think about the bay area weather or crime rate very much until they're pondering a move to Chicago or Detroit. They may not think about the bay area's cultural diversity or educational opportunities until they're considering moving to a small city in Nebraska. People take the things they already have for granted.
For example, I basically took for granted many American/west coast/bay area-n advantages before I moved to Munich and lost them: amazing restaurant scene (especially Asian/Mexican food), business hours are generally convenient, online selection of goods (especially Amazon) very strong, electronics relatively cheap, robust nerd culture, etc.
At my previous company, it was very easy to move from SF to Seattle, which would save a high income tech employee a lot (no state tax, lower housing costs). Maybe a dozen have moved; the vast majority haven't. These "revealed preferences" say a lot more than what people are claiming.
Honestly, at high enough levels in top tech companies, money isn't that limiting of a factor. e.g. at Google L7 level, an employee supporting a family (say spouse and kid) could have FIREd into a low-COL area after ~5 years of work.
I've chatted with the few of the people involved in siting our remote engineering offices. They're solidly convinced that there's no point even trying to recruit in the US outside SF/NY/SEA, and are looking directly to the developing world. The satellite office strategy in the era of Trump is to the hire the H1Bs where they don't need visas.