Also think how much is an extra hour every day (or however long you commute) worth to you in quality of life.
At this point, people arguing for moving to lower cost of living area should just show the math.
> Also think how much is an extra hour every day (or however long you commute) worth to you in quality of life.
Just live close to the office. You can literally pay thousands of dollars a month and still be better of financially.
And really, how much is it worth? Is it worth $100K a year? Because that's how much less disposable income/savings some of the people with higher salaries would find them selves with in the proposed scenario.
Living in the city near the office also depends on the area. I can get out off my town in ~5min at any time of the day. There's no traffic on my street. I've got a creek and walking paths nearby. I have time to cook at home and save on takeaways and potentially improve my health. I wouldn't exchange this for an extra $100k and daily commute.
Living in a smaller city will be different. Having different hobbies will have an impact. I don't see any way to show this makes sense in general. It will be make sense for some people though.
What I object to is people saying that cheapness of such places will make up for massive salary reductions. It won't.
That rent difference turns out to be $24000-$48000 a year. If salaries are cut by 40%, it would only make economic sense to move if you earned less than $60000-$120000 a year (not accounting for cheaper food).
Whether the lifestyle differences would be positive or negative is highly dependent on the individual. And that's without getting into other opportunities available if you stay in SF.