> You should be able to afford to raise a family on half of that, even in the Bay Area... unless you keep buying new cars, bought a house you couldn't afford... and generally just represent the kind of person who the people who grew up in the area you moved into despise.
Actually, that's not true. Half that is $105k. Rent in the SF Bay for a 2 bed / 2 bath apartment within 30 minutes of that $105k job is going to costs you minimum $2.5k a month, more likely even $3k. So that's $36k a year, after tax. Your marginal rate at $105k is likely the 28% bracket. So $50k * 72% = $36k means it costs you $50k of your pre-tax income to pay for rent. Take the other $50k, chop off another 7.65% for OASDI / Med taxes = another $8k. State income tax will run another 5% ish, so another $5k. Suddenly your $105k has been dropped down to around $40k for the basic set of rent and taxes. And that's before you've even had a chance to pay for anything else - food, utilities, car, insurance, etc. And before you've put anything into savings.
I remember thinking back in the early 2000s that the "6 figure income" was the pinnacle of climbing out of the middle class into the start of the upper class. But the sad reality today is that with monetary inflation, demand inflation for living expenses, globalization, etc ... $100k is barely middle class anymore across many of the major metro areas in the United States. In the minor metro areas across the country, where populations in a 20 mile radius are under say 50k, you can still survive quite nicely on an $80k-ish income. But in major metro areas, especially with a family, that is not true anymore.