Very interesting responses so far, thanks guys. I suppose I shouldn't be, but I was a bit surprised just how much the lower stress and greater autonomy seems to be worth to many of you, even if you are delaying FIRE in the process. Of course many factors do come into play, but I wanted to raise a more theoretical discussion than a case study.
To speak to MrsDinero, that should be true ostensibly, but it isn't always. For example, some careers have very few remote work opportunities simply for cultural reasons. Many nonprofit or government offices can be like this. The butt-in-chair culture is so entrenched that it doesn't matter how necessary your physical presence is. If you scored a remote opportunity in one of those fields, it might be unlikely you could find another (especially if you are geographically limited), so if the pay was also bad and they refused to raise it, you would be faced with this very dilemma. Or maybe the org is a small one without the budget to pay a competitive market rate, but otherwise has all of the advantages I listed. I know more than one person who has gone through something like this, including myself.
I too chose to stay in the lower paying position and I will say the quality of life benefits are awesome. That said, I am sometimes pretty annoyed at how below market my pay is (around 18-20%). Emotionally, I think my line is something like a 25% discount before I would be more upset by my low pay than happy at the other benefits the job provides. Then again, reading other people's thoughts makes me think I should let that go a bit and just be happy I have an opportunity that few others do.