If California wants to grow its population, and I\u2019m often not sure about that, growing the supply of single-family housing might help.<\/p>\n
My trusty spreadsheet<\/a> helped me see this wisdom by deciphering demographic, real estate and economic data primarily from demographers at the state\u2019s Department of Finance.<\/a> Their annual accounting of people and residential properties, as of Jan. 1 each year, provides insight into population and housing supply swings within the Golden State.<\/p>\n Eyeballing what occurred between the start of this year and 2019, just before coronavirus upended the globe, gives us a snapshot of what\u2019s working in this pandemic-twisted era. This is tricky, as the overarching pattern is an essentially flat statewide population \u2014 up 89,000 or 0.2% in seven years.<\/p>\n To find hints about what drives population attraction, we dug into the winners and losers: the state\u2019s 58 counties split into two groups \u2013 those that added population over the past seven years vs. those that lost residents.<\/p>\n There\u2019s certainly an attraction gap. In the 24 growth counties, population was up 3% to 17.3 million. In the 34 shrinking counties, population fell 2% to 22.3 million.<\/p>\n Attraction factor<\/p>\n \u201cBuild it, and they will come\u201d sometimes works.<\/p>\n Population flows suggest people were drawn to areas where more housing was being created. During these seven years, the number of housing units grew by 7% where population rose, outpacing the 5% increase where population dropped.<\/p>\n Single-family residences were a key attraction factor.<\/p>\n The 24 growing counties had a decidedly higher concentration of single-family residences: 72% of their housing units were single-family, compared with just 59% in 34 counties where population declined.<\/p>\n This suggests demand for family-friendly locales, a notion supported by a look at population density.\u00a0This year, there were 2.74 residents per household in population gainers \u2013 slightly more crowded than the 2.55 ratio found where population dropped.<\/p>\n Build, baby, build<\/p>\n The growth spots also had more construction for these family-friendly residences.<\/p>\n Single-family creation rose 6% between 2019 and 2026 in California\u2019s growth counties, outpacing a 3% increase where population dropped.<\/p>\n Additionally, growth counties doubled down on single-family housing, with 68% of their housing creation since 2019 in that style. It was just 36% in counties where population dropped.<\/p>\n The price is wrong<\/p>\n Now, cogitate some affordability math that estimates housing costs for these two groups of counties using Census Bureau data tracking home values between 2019 and 2024<\/a>.<\/p>\n Where the population grew, a typical home cost $586,500 vs. $949,500 where the population declined \u2013 a 62% gap.<\/p>\n Need I say more?<\/p>\n Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s talk about another population magnet: Paychecks.<\/p>\n Looking at federal employment data<\/a>, bosses in California\u2019s growth counties grew staffing by 8% in seven years. Job growth was just 1% where population dropped.<\/p>\n Now, why were jobs added in those growth counties? It might be an odd measure of employer affordability.<\/p>\n