Not sure if your "should" is in the sense that logically it doesn't make sense to be, or that morally or ethically it had no right to be. For the first meaning, neighborhoods rise and fall in popularity based on trends, often driven by the tastes of young people, and is a natural cycle just like clothing fashion. Thus logically it should not be surprising that certain locations rise in housing costs as it increases in popularity. If you intend the second meaning, I'd be interested in your reasons.

> Your argument also doesn't work because most LA tech jobs are in Santa Monica.

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers, but there are a large amount of tech jobs in the South Bay area as well, along the 405 going south around Gardena and such.

> The idea that it should be status quo to commute to your job because you can't afford to live around where you work is nonsensical.

The problem is that traffic around Santa Monica is horrendous, making the housing more expensive. My previous commute from Torrance to Culver City was 40 min in the morning and 20 at night, but going from Culver City to Santa Monica was an extra half an hour. If you pick some of the worst traffic areas in LA, I don't think you should be surprised or incensed that people will pay to cut that traffic time down. It's an infrastructure problem, really.

> Professional, educated, well-off young people can't afford to buy houses in California

There are still lots of cities with affordable house prices, unless they insist on competing to live in the worst traffic areas of California.