I have a much different cost of living equation supporting my decision to live in the bay.
The big expense is obviously rent, which I'm sure they have represented... The average 1 bedroom in Austin around $1,000 and in SF let's say $3,300. Difference of $2,300 * 12 = $27,600. After that, that other $40,000 cost of living difference seems a bit of a stretch.
In SF, my company buys breakfast, lunch, dinner and my transportation to/from work (like many others in this area) so I don't have to factor that into my cost of living. The difference between cost of living adjusted salary tilts toward the SF bay, especially with bay area equity options over what is competitive in Austin (I have no insight into that, I think that would be an interesting study though).
That's great if you're young, but there does come a time in many people's lives when they like to spend at least 2 of those meals with spouses and kids.
Not only that, but when the company buys meals, the employees often spend that time at work, with their coworkers, talking about work, and maybe even eating at their desks while working. It's not a "free" meal by any means. The company wins out big time when that happens.
Instead of such a "free" meal, I'd rather just get paid more and then pay for my meal myself, by myself or with a friend outside of work, or just take the hour off to run errands or do whatever else I want/need to do.
To further this point, housing always swallows everything else in these comparisons, because they do a sort of all-things-being-equal comparison.
But all things are rarely equal.
When I moved from a low-COL city to a high-COL city, I chose to live in a much smaller and crappier apartment. Other people might choose to live with roommates. I never had any intention of looking for accommodations equivalent to what's normal in my hometown.
Housing costs are the easiest thing to compare. It's everything else that's less clear.
Austin also has no income tax. I'm sure a large bay salary incurs a large CA income tax payment. I'd factor that in right on the top, too. Certainly a consideration I have as a Texas resident.
> After that, that other $40,000 cost of living difference seems a bit of a stretch.
Admittedly doesn't apply to everyone, but childcare varies a lot with cost of living, especially since if all the grandparents are priced out of the city and all your friends are in tiny apartments, it's more likely that you'll need to pay big money for babysitting and such.
At some stage the IRS is going start start taxing these benefits in kind (its easy money going begging) odd that they don't already as its easier to collect than going after dual nationals overseas
It's been on the radar for a while. It slips under AFAIK because it's considered "a benefit to the employer." There are plenty of good reasons for employers to offer various food/drink benefits. As it approaches three premium meals a day as an advertised perk though, it's not hard to see it slipping into the crosshairs though.
The big expense is obviously rent, which I'm sure they have represented... The average 1 bedroom in Austin around $1,000 and in SF let's say $3,300. Difference of $2,300 * 12 = $27,600. After that, that other $40,000 cost of living difference seems a bit of a stretch.
In SF, my company buys breakfast, lunch, dinner and my transportation to/from work (like many others in this area) so I don't have to factor that into my cost of living. The difference between cost of living adjusted salary tilts toward the SF bay, especially with bay area equity options over what is competitive in Austin (I have no insight into that, I think that would be an interesting study though).