California’s population is blossoming in places where the lifestyle appeals to a younger, cost-conscious, family-oriented audience.

It’s not rocket science. Let me explain by starting with the latest population tally from the state Department of Finance. It shows California with 39.5 million residents as of Jan. 1, 2025.

Looking back through the pandemic era, the state population has been essentially flat for five years. To be exact, it’s actually down 9,122 residents since April 1, 2020 compared to a 727,917 increase in the previous five years.

However, the recently stagnant population is not a universal theme across the state. Consider what occurred in California’s 25 most populous counties, home to 93% of all residents.

In the past five years, 11 of these big counties, a decidedly inland-leaning group, had population gains.

Merced and Placer saw 4% gains. San Joaquin, Riverside, Tulare and Fresno were up 3%. Kern, Sacramento, San Bernardino and San Diego were in the 1% range. Stanislaus was up 0.5%.

Meanwhile, people counts shrank in 14 counties that are largely near the coast.

San Francisco dropped 3.7%. Losses in Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Ventura were in the 2% ballpark. Los Angeles, Sonoma, Alameda, San Luis Obispo, Solano, Santa Clara and Contra Costa fell roughly 1%. There were even thinner declines in Orange, Santa Barbara and Monterey.

But geography isn’t the only theme. To see what lessons could be learned within the state’s swirling tallies of residents, my trusty spreadsheet contrasted population patterns with housing and employment stats to see what separates the winners from the losers.

Let’s note that the 11 counties with population gains added a total of 269,700 residents in five years, or 1.9% growth. The 14 shrinking counties were down a collective 274,400, or a 1.2% decline.

Home sweet home

Californians move to where the home is.

Population-gaining counties added a combined 225,000 housing units in five years, or 4.6% growth. California’s shrinking counties did grow housing by 293,600 units, but that’s only 3.5% growth.

What type of new housing was built seems to be a key difference.

Single-family houses were 68% of the additions to the housing supply in the population-gaining counties. But they were only 38% of new housing where populations shrank.

That helps explain why population-gaining counties had 71% of their total housing stock in single-family residences last year. Where population dropped it was just 59%.

It seems rentals aren’t for growth.

The price is right

In a pricey state to live in, affordability matters.

You see how household budgets interact with living choices through Zillow statistics on home prices and rents,

Population-gaining counties had a median home value of $537,600 last year vs. $937,000 where people counts shrank, according to Zillow valuations. That’ s a 42% savings.

But population flow has a cost. Home prices rose a median 48% since 2019 in counties with population expansion vs. 40% gains where the people counts contracted.

Maybe we should build starter homes again?

Similar patterns were found for tenants. California rents were a median $2,196 a month in counties with population growth vs. $3,039 where it shrank. That’s 27% cheaper.

But the lure of those bargains – plus new residents and limited multifamily construction – boosted rents by 46% since 2019 where population grew. Landlords only got 24% rent hikes where the population shrank.

Paycheck push

Folks will move where employment opportunities are plentiful.

Federal job figures show California’s population-gaining counties added 335,000 workers in the five years ending in September 2024, or 6% growth.

Conversely, jobs fell by a combined 64,900, or 1%, in counties where the population shrank.

But curiously, pay was lower where population blossomed – a hint that bosses in those communities carry cheaper labor costs.

The weekly wage in population-gaining counties was a median $1,301 last year. But where the population shrank, paychecks ran $1,896 – that’s 46% higher.

Californians commute great distances because they’ll work where the pay is best and live where housing bargains exist.

Family forces

Contemplate the difference in how many Californians live under one roof.

In counties where the population increased, 2.77 residents were in a typical household last year. Housing in those shrinking counties saw 2.62 people living together.

Remember, higher-density living is typically associated with families. Or consider the demographic gap this way: The typical resident in the 11 expanding counties is 36 years old vs. 39 in the 14 shrinking counties.

Look, people want cheap housing and plentiful job opportunities. Fix “affordability” and California gets back into the growth game.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at [email protected]

Related Articles

Newsom calls on California cities to effectively ban homeless encampments

Big South Bay apartment complexes are bought for hundreds of millions

San Mateo County sets aside $2 million for farmworker housing loans

New South Bay co-op plants seeds of empowerment for female farmworkers

Why do Bay Area homeless people turn down shelter beds?