Student Opinion: Interpreting the So-Called Californian Exodus

In regard to the title of this article, there is no “so-called” exodus.  There’s an actual, net exodus.

College student’s choices to stay or leave California before entering the workforce should not be seen as solely negative or positive. Rather, it is more constructive to view their decisions as revealing in terms of the issues California should remedy.

Uhm, if you’re going to claim that it should not be viewed as “positive” or “negative”, I would agree.  However, you can’t then go on to state that this should be “remedied”, without inherently implying that it’s “negative”.

The high cost of rent and subsequently, higher costs of living, are the most significant reasons for citizens leaving cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.

It is (generally) true that folks can get “more for their money” in other states, though costs within California vary widely.  In any case, that is a significant reason, as are state income taxes (which don’t exist in other states), homelessness, crime, lousy public schools, and sometimes “politics” (to name a few).

But perhaps the main reason is the ability to telecommute, which appears to be relatively permanent.  Covid “kick started” it, but technology (now) also allows it.  (This was not the case even a few years ago, regarding technology.)

Who wouldn’t want to live in a nicer, less-expensive area with better weather and access to vast outdoor opportunities?  While also not having to commute to work, dress in uncomfortable clothes, not have to deal with co-workers and bosses in the same room, and have the flexibility to work at a schedule/pace more closely-aligned with your own preferences, etc.?

UCLA and UC Berkeley are both located in regions that are difficult for students and newly-graduated students to afford in the long term.

So?  (And actually, that was the case a long time ago, as well.)  But, Bay Area housing prices have been falling faster than anywhere in the country (and didn’t rise as much, during the pandemic).  Not sure about L.A.

Young people moving around does not necessarily mean a decrease in population, as other young people move to California.

It does mean a decrease in population in California.  There’s also evidence that higher costs of living leads younger people to have fewer children (and to do so later in life).

The University of California survey also found that many tended to move outside of cities like San Francisco or Los Angeles, and remain in the state of California. However, by relocating outside the city and into less expensive neighborhoods, it creates new gentrification issues.

There has been some “within state” moving.  However, there’s also been a lot of “out-of-state” moving.  A net exodus, in fact.  I’m failing to see the “problem” with this – for anyone.

Not only people, but companies such as Tesla and Oracle have moved out of California. Major companies leaving Silicon Valley will, in turn, cause more employees to follow. Companies realize that being located in California is not necessary to succeed.

Obviously, they (and I) agree.

College students face housing issues and poor access to affordable resources, along with the high cost of tuition. Thus, the trend of leaving California might influence them.

It should (and has).

College students might wonder if it makes more sense to prioritize their mental health over the stresses of making it in a big city like Los Angeles or San Francisco, and take up work outside of major cities. However, others might prefer the accessibility and availability of employment, despite the housing uncertainty. 

To each their own.  Pursuing the “corporate ladder” has always created stress.

The UC survey finds that there is no strong feeling of dissatisfaction with the declining population. A majority would prefer the population to remain the same, while few would prefer growth.

Your first sentence conflicts with your second sentence.

In addition, people are optimistic and believe in the “California Dream.”

I don’t know what the “California Dream” actually is.  Sounds like a marketing term.

The question is whether housing can be guaranteed for all people in California’s urban cities, or do the significant benefits and opportunities that are offered California’s cities come at a cost to natives and locals?

In regard to the first part of your question, that’s NEVER been the case.

In regard to the second part of your question, I’m not sure why you’re combining “natives and locals”.  But yes, there is indeed a cost to continued growth (both sprawl, and infill).  Ultimately, it’s an environmental cost, as well.

The exodus makes it clear that as a basic human right, the housing crisis should be taken more seriously in and by the country’s most economically prosperous communities.

The exodus is not “proof” that housing is a “human right”.  In anything, the exodus demonstrates the opposite.

If the crisis isn’t addressed and remedied in a timely manner, California may face even more serious consequences that could affect its workforce and quality of life in the future.

I’ve yet to see anyone provide what those “consequences” are, other than stabilization.  In fact, I’ve never seen anyone define exactly what the “crisis” is, or how we’ll know when it’s “solved”.