CalMatters
By Dan Walters, Calmatters
After Jerry Brown became governor of California for the first time nearly a half-century ago, he declared that the state had entered “an era of limits.”
Citing “sluggish economic growth, increasing social instability, widespread unemployment and unprecedented environmental challenges,” Brown told state legislators in his 1976 state of the state speech, “In place of a manifest economic destiny, we face a sober reassessment of new economic realities, and we all have to get used to it.”
At the time, his rather gloomy observation seemed to be in line with current events. California had seen startling population growth and economic expansion in the decades after World War II, becoming the most populous state in 1962 during the governorship of Brown’s father, Pat Brown.
However, population growth slowed in the 1970s after the postwar baby boom had waned. By then the state’s economy was undergoing a dramatic, dislocating transformation from industrialism to post-industrial domination by trade, services and technology.
As it turned out, however, the conditions Brown cited, which he translated into fiscal austerity for state government, were merely a pause, not a permanent new reality.
California boomed in the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan’s administration pumping many billions of dollars into the state’s aerospace sector for a military buildup and a population surge driven by waves of migration, mostly from Latin America and Asia, and a new baby boom.
Between 1980 and 1990, California’s population increased by more than 6 million people to nearly 30 million. The 26% gain meant California gained a whopping seven new congressional seats after the 1990 census.
However, things began to slow down shortly thereafter. In the 1990s, the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union manifested itself in sharp cutbacks in military spending, leading to a recession and an exodus of aerospace workers and their families.
Population grew slowly over the next two decades and declined during the COVID-19 pandemic as stay-at-home workers fled to states with less expensive housing, foreign immigration slowed, the death rate rose and the birth rate declined.
However, a new report from the state Department of Finance’s demographics unit says that after four years of population loss, California gained a tiny bit in 2023, “driven by decreased mortality and a rebound in legal foreign immigration.”
The gain was 67,000 residents, bringing California’s population to 39,128,162, the department’s demographers found as they calculated the various factors that influence population changes. What they call “natural growth” – births minus deaths – increased from 106,700 in 2022 to 118,400 in 2023, largely because the death rate dropped after spiking upward during the pandemic.
California’s 1980s baby boom is just a faint memory, however. At one point Californians were producing more than 600,000 babies each year, the equivalent of more than one birth every minute, but the state’s birthrate has dropped to a record low and it now has one of the nation’s lowest fertility rates, according to a new study released this week.
The Birth Industry Lawyers Group, which specializes in maternity legal issues, used federal data to report that California’s fertility rate over the past several years, 55 per 1,000 women, is below the national rate of 58.8 and ninth lowest among the states. South Dakota is the most fecund state with a 71.2 fertility rate, followed closely by North Dakota.
The new Department of Finance report projects that with the effects of pandemic worn off, California’s population will continue to grow, albeit slowly.
The new data raise an old question: Is California better off with an increasing population or do the demands of more people just make things more complicated by increasing competition for jobs, housing and other necessities of life?
CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters. For more stories by Dan Walters, go to Commentary.
“The new data raise an old question: Is California better off with an increasing population or do the demands of more people just make things more complicated by increasing competition for jobs, housing and other necessities of life?”
This seems to be the perpetual argument. One reads many comments on Edhat in which the writers lament the good old days, when SB was less crowded, life was simpler, etc. I read the same laments about other places. I grew up in Orange County during the 60’s and watched all the ag land get plowed under to build houses and it seemed there was less pressure due to crowding back then. I read this over and over again, about all parts of California. When I was a kid, the Central Valley was “the breadbasket” of the country. A significant portion of that ag land has been lost to development also. People lament these changes, but they also lament the loss of a congressional seat due to California’s population not keeping pace with other parts of the country.
I think there has to be a new paradigm that is based upon stability (or managed retreat) rather than growth. We can’t continue to grow forever. I remember hearing Andy Caldwell state that the population of the entire world could live in an area the size of Texas, as an argument for continued growth. Imagine what the quality those cramped lives would be like, with lack of fresh air, recreational spaces, abundant nature, etc.
Blaming Caldwell? Uuhh, no. Growth is the Newsom philosophy, not the Caldwell. You haven’t seen what’s about to go down around here?
I don’t see the author blaming caldwell, I see it as pointing out another idiotic thing he’s said to his small pack of local idiots. But the sky is not falling on the population topic Basic, we should be more concerned about climate change and preserving resources.
Not the author, dude – the previous poster…
“the author” means the author of that comment, lbh shpxvat vzorpvyr
But at least we all agree that it’s just another idiotic thing from Andy.
Ah, yes, Andy Caldwell, professional “community organizer” for the past what, forty years?
As I said, forget Andy – this post is about growth in CA. It’s a Newsom-democrat driven problem as we speak, looking to grow and build our way out of an economic reality that is thus – it’s a desirable and therefore expensive place where we live, and always will be. Our governor and anyone voting for him are accountable.
California and the U.S. will be very different in the next 10-15 years when the boomers die and millennials/GenZ continue have less kids later in life. Working remotely will continue and likely become the new normal making it easier to live anywhere. I predict California will always have a high population due to our amazing weather, scenery, progressive policies, and laidback lifestyle but it will never be “affordable” and people will continue to seek out other areas for that.
LOL! Yeah, it may be getting a population boost, but no where to live, no viable high wages (lots of P/T entry level jobs and even those are leaving) BUT, they CAN access all the Social welfare, EBT, housing, lifetime medical (FREE only if you are here ILLEGALLY until the age of 68-) and a ton of other taxpayer supported Subsidies … Problem is, there are fewer and fewer significant taxPAYERs that are staying in CA—-You can’t juice a turnip!
What a crock of horsepuckey. Do you just make this stuff up, or is it fed to you by your social media manipulators?
COAST – “lifetime medical (FREE only if you are here ILLEGALLY until the age of 68-)” – Just. Stop. Lying.
Honestly and sincerely, I can’t find a single comment of yours here that doesn’t contain at least one, major and easily verifiable lie. I mean, lying about this stuff on Parler with all your buddies is one thing, but coming here where there are well educated and reasonable people and trying to pass your outrageous lies is just getting exhausting. Please. Make an effort.
It’s true – if an undocumented individual comes into an ER they’ll get taken care of. At taxpayers’ expense. Sane with a homeless person who has zero resources. How is Coast lying?
Yeah, BASIC, that’s not what I was saying was a lie. It’s pretty clear what I was talking about. I’ve been saying this here for a long time.
It’s this part: “only if you are here ILLEGALLY” — that, again, is a lie. EVERYONE is eligible if you meet the criteria.
You folks keep saying ONLY illegals get healthcare, which is a lie.
Lbh ner fb shpxvat fghcvq vg uhegf.
Effective January 1, 2024, undocumented immigrants aged 26 to 49 have become eligible for full medical coverage under California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal.
Bravo COAST! You posted a true statement!
Illegals don’t get free medical care? Do they just die on the street?
RUBY – Yes, in CA, OR, WA and CO, they do get free healthcare (just like we ALL are eligible for through Medical), thank goodness. That keeps our tax payer costs down, unlike in moronic states like Texas where people seem to rather pay more money for uninsured immigrants using the ER and Urgent Care for illnesses.
Lies from the GOP don’t help anyone, especially not the lower class tax payers who end up footing the bill with the middle class. It’s truly baffling how bad our collective critical thinking is.
Once again Sac, you’re wrong. We (you too, kid) are absolutely paying a ton of taxpayer money out here in the west to cover these folks who continually show up in our ED’s with major illnesses. Cottage ED gets it all day long. Don’t even try to talk about this. You’re out of your league spouting about healthcare policy on Edhat.
BASIC – no, YOU”RE WRONG. Again. Before you talk down to me about “spouting about healthcare policy,” read the words I actually wrote, not the ones you imagine I did. You’re saying the same thing I did, you just apparently don’t have the faculty to understand that, kid.
Ab bar fnvq gurl qba’g trg serr zrqvpny pner. Jul ner lbh evtug jvatref fb shpxvat fghcvq naq vyyvgrengr?
Clever encryption, or fingers on the wrong keys? After running it through encryption software, it seems it’s the latter.
It’s a substitution cipher.
That particular comment says:
“No one said they don t get free medical care. Why are you right wingers so f****** stupid and illiterate?”
The others are similar. The sentiments are agreeable, even if the wording is not so nice.
ROT13 cipher
Lets agree that humans are crowding themselves into urban centers in ever larger numbers which comes at ever increasing densities.
I see this and wonder if it is in the future here in the US
https://www.businessinsider.com/craziest-microapartments-around-world-2016-9
The growth in CA and the housing pressure is all in the urban areas. Almost 50% of the CA population has chosen to live in the LA metro area. I wonder how much $$$ it would take to incentivize 100,000 LA metro homeowners to sell and move to a more rural area in state or even anywhere out of state. I don’t mean a cash payment, but maybe no state tax on sale profit
Adding 25,000 to Santa Barbara would change the character of the town – but 25,000 to a major metropolitan area would do nothing.
An increase of 67,000 is 0.15%. Is that a game changer?
What bothers me is that the deficit Ann our grandchildren pay for indigent care – we are quite good at spending our children’s money.
That’s the Republican way. Reduce taxes, but spend away!
Who is deficit Ann? And why is anyone paying her?