Neighbor Jim buys a car every 4 years, and you buy a car every 6 years? Obviously Jim is an asshole scumbag. Neighbor Sam has a swimming pool, but your kids just have some squirt guns? Don't even get me started on that guy!
Turning the city into a bedroom community is bad for the city. It works in suburbs because suburbs are designed that way. Sprawl, low density, distribution of goods and services. Cities are not designed that way.
High density produces higher rents, for homes and for businesses. Businesses with high rents can't survive when the neighborhood is only occupied at night and on weekends.
What you have here are people who want the advantages of this city, but aren't around enough to make it worth providing those advantages.
The medium term outcome of this is pretty clear- many businesses in SF are going to go under. Most of what makes SF unique is going to be driven out by cost. What you'll be left with is some sort of bizarre bedroom city that no one really enjoys any more.
And then what?
The point is that they don't make it worthwhile to businesses to provide those advantages. They aren't there 12+ hours a day, only at night, when people spend less money anyway, so how could they?
They aren't sufficient customers for the city's businesses and restaurants. Later at night, a bit. On weekends, some. During the work week? Not at all.
And that works in bedroom communities where rents and other costs are lower. It doesn't work in cities.
Couple thousand commuters to the Valley are not going to turn a million-resident city into sleepy bedroom community with only soccer Moms driving occasional minivans.