I'm not sure what your point is. Plenty of people choose to live in cheaper places for lower salaries or for that matter cheaper places for the same salary. Plenty of people also choose to live far from work and have a really long commute. It's a CHOICE. You make it, you live with it. If you want to live in an expensive place that's also your CHOICE.
I had a friend who lived in Laguna Beach, CA and got a job in Studio City. He then whined about how his life sucked because this commute was so long (~2hrs in traffic). He wanted special treatment because of his hardship. It was pointed out that was HIS CHOICE. The rest of the employees chose to live closer to the company. He CHOOSE to have a long commute because he wanted to stay in Laguna Beach. Eventually he got a job somewhere closer to his house rather. Again, his CHOICE.
I have another friend who moved to Arkansas from Orange County. In Orange County he was paying $1200 (a while ago) a month for 2 bedroom apartment. In Arkansas he had a 3 bedroom house on 1.5 acres of land for $350 a month. Again that was his choice.
The world doesn't owe you a nice place to live in an exciting area of the world for a cheap price.
People like you or me certainly choose to move to LA or Seattle or San Francisco for a cushy tech job, but that's a tiny percentage of the population.
To me, this is like telling a diabetic that they 'choose' to inject insulin and check their blood sugar every day. Certainly they can exercise free will and stop, but there are severe consequences that make that not a realistic option.
If everyone moves to those particular low-rent places, that increases the demand there, and rents will go up until housing supply increases to meet demand (or, like SF, it never increases and prices just keep going up). This is ignoring the problem of finding work in low-rent areas (though telecommuting at least makes that less difficult.)
To me, 'the problem is where you live' is utterly condescending. Would it be reasonable to tell a minimum wage worker, who works 80+ hours a week, that his problem is where he lives and he should just move? How is that person supposed to afford to move when they can barely pay rent every month? Do you really think THAT is the problem, that some people happen to live/work in a certain location, and it would be better if they just moved to where all the other low-income families live?
For a concrete example: I used to work in the Seattle area for a few years. I 'solved' the rent costs problem by living way to the east, in the Issaquah mountains.
Unfortunately this meant a 30-60 minute car commute each way, along with a big increase in car maintenance/fuel expenses. And because I was in the mountains, every winter the occasional ice storm would knock out power/heat for 1-2 weeks, or the mountain roads would be so iced over that I couldn't get to work. Days I'm not working are days I'm not getting paid; if I'm lucky I don't get fired.
Yeah, solves everything, doesn't it?