Nobody wants to bother questioning the numbers. The first line shows Zynga, $3545, $147K, 47%. First hit on federal income tax calculator using single standard deduction no kids gets a federal tax liability of $30K, leaving $117K or a monthly of $9750, so $3545 is 37% of after tax income, which is not too bad. And anyone making a decent income should put some thought and money into deductions: 401k+HSA/FSA being the obvious ones. But actually, the 30% of monthly is generally calculated before taxes, so at 147K the monthly rent could be up to $3675. Not that I'm recommending spending that much or approving of the astronomical SF rents, but any article on the subject should at least do math correctly.
No, what's really going on is a certain company is trying to justify paying employees 20% less, under the excuse that local cost of living is lower. So if I live in SF in my parent's house and pay little to no rent, someone can pay me less? What if I eat ramen instead of going out to eat every night? That's absurd -- we should be paid according to what value we bring and it's up to us how much we spend on cost of living. In fact, a company in LA that can't attract top talent such as presumably are now in SF should be offering even higher salaries.