Surely a one bedroom place is the least efficient way to live? Also, bear in mind most people live in couples, so if there's two of you, a combined income of $100,000 is very reasonable, and you should be able to live anywhere here.
> "$100,000 is very reasonable, and you should be able to live anywhere here."
$100K is really not total-freedom money in a city like SF. Take the FiDi and Mission Bay for example - $3200/month for a 1BR means $38,400 in rent every year.
That's spending $39% of your pre-tax income on rent, a deeply inadvisable amount, if any sane landlord would even allow it. Even if we drop the rent to $2500 to open up options in the Haight, Castro, and Mission, we're still talking about $30K in pure rent.
Nowadays I'm in NYC, where no sane landlord will let you break the 40X Rule, where your monthly rent multiplied by 40 may not exceed your pre-tax annual income. On $100K that's $2500 a month - and that's an absolute upper bound rent. $2500 is totally feasible in SF, but you definitely won't have your pick of apartments. A income of $100K would be well-advised to stay under $2500, where pickings are increasingly slim.
> "Also, bear in mind most people live in couples"
Citation needed. I know a lot of people who have roommates in SF, but SF is a notoriously single city. I'd be extremely surprised if >50% of SF's population is living with a spouse or partner.
Some quick Google-fu:
In fact, it looks like as of the 2000 census[1] that 38% of the city lived alone, and 56% of households do not have a spouse or partner living there. I wouldn't call that "most people".
[1] http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm
Side note: it's crazy that you can rent places in good parts of Manhattan for cheaper than parts of SF these days.