Of course, most companies are interested in networking and raising capital, which makes the concentration of jobs higher in those areas that support it.
But honestly, if you want to live a life that involves kids, a car, and doesn't involve the community as heavily, SF isn't for you.
"But honestly, if you want to live a life that involves kids, a car, and doesn't involving the community as heavily, SF isn't for you." See but that is sad.
I would not argue that its intentional, the environment really promotes a certain kind of person living in the city - the kind of person who can and wants to spend countless hours at a startup.
The kind of person who doesn't have a car, who DOES go out all the time, and so on.
Speaking of - I was thumbing through the blog that the original article was on, and there was an article about the market for Aeron chairs... hidden in there was the fact that, "oops, none of us have cars, how can we transport these?!"
It's somewhat telling. Can you think of another place in the US(besides the other startup hub, NY) where you'd see people making over $100K not having cars?
It's a very precise social strata that SF is selecting for, and it is a strata that includes ideal tech workers. Companies move here because that's where the workers are. Having 50% more real income isn't worth much if it tears you out of the great social environment, especially to a third-tier city.
Good news, though: it's not like the whole Bay Area is the same. There are perfectly family-friendly communities in other areas, including parts of the South and East Bay.
I could go on at some length - since I've been in both the job hunt and the online dating world heavily, I've become very acutely aware of just what is (and isn't) cool, especially as cities go - since it's a fascinating intersection of economics and sociology.
But honestly, if you want to live a life that involves kids, a car, and doesn't involve the community as heavily, SF isn't for you.