[acheron]

Living in a high cost of living area is voluntary consumption as much as buying a new BMW every year or taking European vacations all the time. If you want to spend your wealth (and yes, 200k/yr is ridiculously high) on living in SF that’s your choice, but that doesn’t make you non wealthy.

[bradlys]

Do you live in SF? It sounds like you don’t live in SF.

[rayiner]

You don’t have to live in SF to observe that living in SF is a choice. Many of my law school cohort has household incomes of $300k to $1 million. Many choose to live in MYC or SF or DC and pay nearly $2 million for a house. My wife and I instead chose to buy a sub-$500k house in an exurb. We eat at Maggianos instead of Per Se, but we can afford “rich people” luxuries like a house on the water, sending our kids to private school, etc. But those are choices. An ordinary American would consider us all “rich,” and rightfully so. They don’t care whether we spend our riches on boats versus exclusive neighborhoods versus the cultural amenities of a big city.

[dredmorbius]

The choice is tightly bundled with economic opportunity, income, specific jobs, school quality, and other factors.

I'm interpreting "living in SF" to mean broadly within the SF Bay Area metro region, which would include much of the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. Arguably parts of Marin and Santa Cruz. For some of the longer commutes, Sonoma, Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, and San Joaquin.

Housing is scarce and expensive throughout the region. It's one of few economic hubs in the US let alone the state. And people have increasingly been priced out, or simply unable to find housing (including replacement after natural disasters).

"Choice" isn't a binary, or absent profound implications, opportunities, and/or consequences.