Certainly, one way to manage all this is to not live in a place like San Francisco. But I think it is important to make sure people know that lovely luxuries aren't really what forces people with families to focus on money, and that if you do try to raise a family in SF on the median developer's pay (about $114k a year in SF), you'll find engineers don't really have "more money than <we> need", though of course there's always a version of poverty or struggling that would make raising a family on $114k in any expensive city a cakewalk.
Just keep in mind, the median price for a house here is over 1 mil, and that 1 mil will get you a 2br, maybe 3, south of 280 or maybe the outer sunset. OK areas. Full time childcare is about $24,000 a year. Those are really the whopper expenses (that and health care).
Are those "lovely luxuries"? Well, maybe living in SF is a lovely luxury. I like it here, though I'm really here because I grew up here, have two kids in school, and have so much family around that I'm sort of superglued at this point. But yeah, I could leave. All in all, I think there are better places (no, I'm not like some pac northwester trying to get you scared of the rain, if it's your choice to live here you should be welcome in SF, but I really do mean this, I'm really not sure SF is worth it if you have the option of living somewhere else).
I'm not trying to be hard on the author of this piece, but I do think it's important for people to know that engineers in SF even in dual income families struggle with housing and child care payments, not with luxury cars, expensive vacation, lovely luxuries.