They seem unaware that a lot of SF based people go to the east bay.

But it's not inevitable that families move to suburbs either. Commenter is partly perpetuating a 1960s era "white flight" kind of stereotype, where cities are said to be terrible for families. I happen to have two kids in SF.

Additionally, a lot of what drives people out of SF specifically is the expense.

SF is a great place for kids of all ages. But housing is indeed very expensive, as is childcare. Families in rent-controlled apartments who want more space without significantly higher expense don’t have a lot of options; several such families we know ended up moving out of the city (sometimes to elsewhere in Northern CA but often across the country to be closer to family). I don’t know anyone who moved because they thought their kids were having a bad time in the city.

Yes, but surely those people are not moving to the South Bay (which is just as expensive).

My bad. I meant "for good or for worse". That is, I was trying to be neutral to the merit of moving from SF to the south.

Anecdotally, I've generally heard this phrased as "for better or for worse" :)

Oh yeah! Thanks!