comparable quality of life at 110 in chicago is ~180 in sv and probably much higher elsewhere. also, traffic in a place like chicago is an experience very few people in tech ever deal with, given the mass transport.
If you're working in the city with a wide range of ages, you have people who are more 'settled' living out in the suburbs and commuting in.
But if you're working in, say, Alpharetta, with mostly young people, a lot may have moved to be close to work (or if they're fresh out of college, taken an apartment near by anyway).
Because, yeah, everywhere I've worked in Atlanta, a majority of people have had some pretty lousy commutes.
Not to mention the 60% savings in cost of living over SV. http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/at...
And, at the end of the day housing is so cost effective it is almost not crazy to move for a job, even within the metro.
Despite the dollar utility value difference I'll still assert that the most optimal career path for ambitious, diligent tech workers regardless of whether you're looking for money or for long term life balance is to go for as high as you can comfortably go in the Bay Area or maybe NY when young and with few expenses and go somewhere lower cost of living to settle down. Finance people aren't being stupid by going to NYC early in their career I'd imagine. This career pattern is supported by a study linked on HN a while ago (sorry, can't find link at the moment) with a report on expected earnings when going from the Bay Area elsewhere - starting with as high of salary as possible helps negotiate your pay when going to a lower cost of living area. Your marketable skills should have grown better working at a tech company doing cutting edge projects than for the usual enterprise shovelware projects that are the bread and butter of tech companies outside tech hubs as well.