Some interesting points, although I disagree with you on a lot of your conclusions.
The US has one of the highest birth rates of any industrialized country, largely due to immigration. It’s quite hard to project how those trends will continue or change in the near and distant future. It’s well documented that recent immigrants have more children than 2nd, 3rd, etc generation citizens of industrialized nations.
If San Diego’s growth does come from immigrants, it’s unlikely they’re going to drive up housing prices. Stereotypically they’re willing to live in much denser homes, and aren’t usually going to make the kind of incomes to afford homes. Also, in the case of illegals, they’re not going to be able to have the paperwork to get the big loans needed.
If 9% of individuals can afford the median home, it doesn’t necessarily mean only 9% own. 50% of homes cost less than the median, and you’d imagine that those are being bought by people below the median income. Still a problem, but not QUITE as dire as 8-10% makes it sound.
Agriculture and entertainment are two industries the United states has huge advantages in and is unlikely to outsource. The reality is the US has a low population density for an industrialized nation (Easy to forget when you live on the California Coast, but when you’re from the midwest you know what most of the country looks like). We have a lot of arable land, and as a consequence have some of the cheapest food in the world. The government actually buys excess dairy products to prop up the price to keep farms in buisiness. There’s a cost factor too: with the rising price of oil, transporting food long distances isn’t very practical.
I tend to believe the economy drives housing, and not the other way around. I also believe in cycles. We’re headed for a downcycle, though the exact timing is tough to predict. Regardless, we’re living in the richest period of history to date, and it’s hard to imagine that technology won’t continue improving.
