The Fastest Population Growth in Five Years

Submitted by Rich Toscano on December 27, 2008 - 4:33pm

The California Department of Finance recently released a new estimate of San Diego County's population growth. According to the DOF, San Diego's population grew by 46,634 people in the year to July 2008. This 1.5 percent increase represents the fastest annual percent growth since 2003.

continue reading at voiceofsandiego.org

(category: )

Submitted by peterb on December 27, 2008 - 5:20pm.

This is counter intuitive and not logical as unemployment is growing and higher than it's been in many years. But since this is govt provided statistics, I would not give them much credit as being accurate and up-to-date. Govt stats have become laughable. I would want to see their calculation methodology and data gathering methodology in order to determine the value of this report.

Submitted by Arraya on December 27, 2008 - 5:56pm.

So a bunch of foreigners moved hear and nobody is leaving because the can't sell there home. Given that unemployment is trending up for the foreseeable future I would not label this as positive, just more warm bodies and a dwindling pool of jobs.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on December 27, 2008 - 10:30pm.

While peterb's remark has some validity, I would like to know what a better source for these numbers would be.

I am not challenging his assertion just curious.

Rich:
Is the population increase reflected in the employment numbers?

Is it possible that the increase in unemployment can be partially explained by immigration (from wherever)?

I am not sure that would change anything but it would wetten the numbers a touch.

In some ways (though not necessarily important ways) people moving here without a job (at least initially) would be different from people losing jobs and staying here for months or years.

Submitted by CA renter on December 27, 2008 - 11:02pm.

If one looks at the world's most densely populated cities, you'll see that credit availability and currency rates affect property prices more than densitiy alone.

Some of the most densely populated cities are also some of the poorest and least expensive, globally speaking.

http://www.propertywisebulgaria.com/arti...

Submitted by Nozferat on December 27, 2008 - 11:32pm.

Rich,

I'm surprised you don't state the obvious....population decrease during a housing boom.

This completely contradicts the idiotic assumption of many housing shills about supply/demand.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on December 28, 2008 - 12:40am.

Nozferat wrote:
Rich,

I'm surprised you don't state the obvious....population decrease during a housing boom.

This completely contradicts the idiotic assumption of many housing shills about supply/demand.

Maybe I am misreading the chart but I see lower increases during the boom. Not decreases.

What are you seeing?

Submitted by Rich Toscano on December 28, 2008 - 1:12am.

Nozferat wrote:
Rich,

I'm surprised you don't state the obvious....population decrease during a housing boom.

This completely contradicts the idiotic assumption of many housing shills about supply/demand.

I talked about the muted population growth a lot back in the bubble years, when people were still widely using the "housing shortage/everyone wants to live here" rationale. EG http://piggington.com/bubble

Now that everyone agrees it was a bubble I am focusing on this stuff more as an indicator of what's going on than anything else.

urbanrealtor wrote:

Rich:
Is the population increase reflected in the employment numbers?

I don't understand this question... can you elaborate?

Rich

Submitted by jpinpb on December 28, 2008 - 12:06pm.

Please forgive the stupid question. Where and how does the Department of Finance get their numbers?

Submitted by peterb on December 28, 2008 - 12:15pm.

I've followed various CA govt immigration stats over the years and they're really unreliable. Most people need to work to live. Hence the unemployment delta leads to people migrating where the jobs are more readily available. CA usually leads the contraction, so people leave here to go where work is available and then return when it gets better here. Since we've been in a recession about a year now, people should be leaving not arriving, here. There may be some lag, but this is a very consistant trend during an economic contraction. I dont know of a good way to track migration. But an increases in rental properties available, lay-off announcement, etc...are probably a better indicators. But with the advent of tent cities, etc...who knows.

Submitted by Nor-LA-SD-guy on December 29, 2008 - 12:48pm.

People leave SoCal when Jobs are transferred (1982-84 Auto industry left L.A. area etc..) 1991 1994 Defense industry transfers a lot of Jobs to the central U.S. and east coasts from SoCal area.

I would put it out there that when the economy and housing does finally turn around that population growth will add some upward pressure on home prices. I had heard somewhere that long term SoCal grows at the rate of 1600 people per day (that’s about two Temecula valley’s per year).

With homes available for less than rent in area’s like Temecula etc… well I won’t go there today.

Good Luck
Everyone's life is different.

Submitted by jennyo on December 30, 2008 - 12:03pm.

@ jpinpb:

Here is the Dept of Finance Demographic Unit website, which may explain their process.

I work for this department, but not in the demographics section, I do budgets.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/Research/Research.php

Submitted by Bugs on December 31, 2008 - 10:11am.

What happens when a homeowner in Temecula loses their house in foreclosure? Where do the go?

They move into rental housing closer to work.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.