SD population will decline

[EconProf]

SD population growth has slowed to essentially nothing (1/6 of 1%) a year ago, so will likely be negative this year, given the trends of recent years. This from census data reported by riderrants.blogspot.com, a very data-driven conservative site on San Diego and CA politics and economics…highly recommended.
This would ordinarily hurt SD rents and housing prices, except our high building costs will tend to push in the other direction.

[spdrun]

Economies should be based on stability, not on perpetual growth and runaway consumption. Growth is an old word for tumor. Consumption is an old word for TB. A step in the right direction, if anything…

However, he’s whining about taxes and “high-speed rail crosscrossing rural areas.” I suspect the real problem is more like “immigration declines under Trump.”

[EconProf]

spdrun: What on earth are you talking about?

[spdrun]

I’m anti-growth and think that zero population growth is a good start. But it’s happening right now because of Trump’s policies, not because of “liberal” policies.

[gzz]

Household size is on a long term negative trend due to fewer children and later marriage, as well as longer lifespans. My grama for example lives alone in a 2200SF house that used to have 4 residents. And when she was 24 she was in a household with a husband and 2 children. How many 24 year old women in California can say that?

Aside from changes in family trends, the good economy is splitting up roommates households and boomerang children situations.

These are trends that are, overall, good for the market. But some of these new households are starting in the suburbs, leaving a smaller household behind in San Diego.

[Myriad]

If the world’s population stops growing, then a lot of economic assumptions about economic growth, investing, debt, etc are no longer valid.
For example, there may be a surplus in funds for investment by retirees, driving rates for safe assets to near 0%. Asset prices would probably go down globally while wages increase, until the world gets to steady state. Meanwhile borrowing money for “risky” investments or real estate would go up significantly because no one would expect asset price increases.
State state, of course would be a big ?. You could just be for setting up for a massive decline in population as a result of people not having kids because the economic situation will be worse.

[spdrun]

^^^

Here’s hoping — the world’s overpopulated — ZPG/NPG should be the goal, not a concern.

[The-Shoveler]

Regions within regions,

I was listening to a report that the san fernando valley
was growing so much faster economically and population wise than the nation as a whole that it is not expected to be impacted much by any foreseeable slow down.

Along the i-15 corridor there are new housing projects going up everywhere, seeing new home signs next to every off-ramp.

[barnaby33]

Here’s hoping — the world’s overpopulated — ZPG/NPG should be the goal, not a concern.

I too have never understood how a declining population is a bad thing in current context. It is blindingly obvious that the quantity and quality of our resource base is declining. In order to maintain a high standard of living population needs to decline. Its as if most people can, but choose not to connect the dots because then they couldn’t have free ham sandwiches!
Josh

[The-Shoveler]

If not for immigration our population would be declining.

It is very very hard to immigrate to either China or Japan.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Regions within regions,

I was listening to a report that the san fernando valley
was growing so much faster economically and population wise than the nation as a whole that it is not expected to be impacted much by any foreseeable slow down.

Along the i-15 corridor there are new housing projects going up everywhere, seeing new home signs next to every off-ramp.[/quote]

Urbanization is proceeding along. Small towns are dying.
Berlin and Tokyo are doing great in countries where small and midsize towns are slowly dying. In USA, urbanization is a little different with urban sprawl like the Riverside/San Bernardino region. Las Vegas, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta are all growing.

I think San Diego suffers from high cost of living and lack of infrastructure such as a major hub airport.

[The-Shoveler]

Ontario and surrounds are growing like crazy.

The Ontario airport now offers direct flights to China etc.. cheaper than flying from LAX.

SD could really use heavy freight rail lines to meet the rail heads in riverside etc..

Adding a metro-rail to that would help a lot too but actually freight rail is more important IMO.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Myriad]If the world’s population stops growing, then a lot of economic assumptions about economic growth, investing, debt, etc are no longer valid.
For example, there may be a surplus in funds for investment by retirees, driving rates for safe assets to near 0%. Asset prices would probably go down globally while wages increase, until the world gets to steady state. Meanwhile borrowing money for “risky” investments or real estate would go up significantly because no one would expect asset price increases.
State state, of course would be a big ?. You could just be for setting up for a massive decline in population as a result of people not having kids because the economic situation will be worse.[/quote]

You have it so right.

Countries such as Norway and Singapore invest their sovereign wealth funds abroad were there is growth. Without population and productivity growth, investment returns will turn negative — especially bad for pensioners and savers in developed countries.

[FlyerInHi]

Moreno Valley is a shithole place but it’s growing fast and one would have earned some of the best returns if one had bought RE at the bottom.

Cities such as Cleveland, or small company towns don’t have much of a future in the new economy, especially if and when population declines.

[Author]

Posts