Is the quality of life in SF much better or do you just get a bigger number in your bank account?

The bigger number is the important part. I could spend 3 years unemployed in my Canadian city then work for a year in SF and my savings account would be bigger than if I spent 4 years working locally. That's a huge QoL difference. I'm not sure if Europeans plan on staying in SF for long

Bingo.

It's not just about getting a bigger number in your bank account, but about your career. Silicon Valley offers amazing opportunities for anyone ambitious enough and it's literally the place where most of the innovation in tech is happening. If you want to build an amazing resume, you can do it. If you want to save money for a few years while working for FAANG and then start your own startup, you can do it. If you want to spend every single bit of disposable income and live like a king, you can do it.

Money, it turns out, makes things way easier.

QoL in SF is about the same to worse than most major cities, with the added benefit of astronomically high rents.

Sure, but on the other hand I used to travel abroad four or five times a year, inside the US every month or so and my checking account wouldn't even feel the strain.

I don't think that many people stay in San Francisco for the quality of life.

Traveling somewhere and paying San Francisco's immense rent are pretty different.

Would you rather live in a cheap city but get a salary that ultimately leaves you with less disposable income?

There are a lot of variables in that equation, in some situations people will have more disposable income and some less. Unless you're working at the "Top 10" like this list shows, the added cost-of-living for SF/Bay Area really doesn't leave you with any disposable income.

I'd disagree with that. Most companies in San Francisco/Bay Area pay salaries that more than make up for the increase in cost of living. I used to work at a startup before it was acquired by Google and my salary back then was more than enough for me to pay rent, travel around, eat out at nice restaurants every other day and engage in an unhealthy level of consumerism and still save thousands of dollars each month. Meanwhile, I had friends in Sacramento making ~$80k a year telling me how crazy I was for 'moving to such an expensive city', even though I was saving more money than they could.

Besides, as I said elsewhere, the benefits of living in the Bay Area aren't just that you may make more money, but how quickly you can advance your career. If you wanted to be making the big bucks in any of the big companies, working for a couple of years in the Bay Area will give you a much bigger chance of getting your foot in the door than working for 10 years anywhere else.

Having worked in San Francisco, and other major metropolitan areas (San Diego, Boston) at essentially the same level I have more disposable income in Boston than I did in SF.

But more anecdata I guess. I'd be interested to see a real cost comparison between the areas and the salary differences. Like what are the Top 10 tech companies paying in less expensive real estate markets? What is the median salary there as well?