”Survey says” looks at various rankings and scorecards judging geographic locations while noting these grades are best seen as a mix of artful interpretation and data.

Buzz: Economic reality has hit California landlords, and their tenants are the winners with four consecutive months of falling rents.

Source: My trusty spreadsheet looked at December’s estimates of lease rates for new tenants in 56 large California cities, compiled by ApartmentList.

Topline

California big-city rents ran $2,110 a month, according to my populated-weighted average of the cities. That’s down 1.1% in a month as 88% of the big cities tracked had falling rents for the month. Rents are off $86 or 4% since August.

And December’s rent was up only 2.4% in a year. That’s the smallest year-over-year increase in 19 months.

But let’s note this recent dip doesn’t wipe away pandemic-era pain for renters. California rents are still up 13% in three years, or $240 a month.

Topline

Let’s look at some extremes among the 56 California cities tracked for December …

Where were the largest rent declines?

1-month drop: Oceanside, off 3.9% to $2,622.

12-month drop: Ventura, off 4.4% to $2,063.

3-year drop: Oakland, off 15% to $1,628.

And which cities had the biggest rent gains?

1-month gain: Ventura, up 1.3% to $2,058.

12-month gain: Escondido, up 11.8% to $2,231.

3-year gain: Escondido, up 40% to $2,231.

And the monthly rent extremes?

Priciest city? Irvine at $3,068.

Cheapest? Fresno at $1,299.

Consider that rents fell in December in nine of California’s 10 most-populated cities. Here are the cities, ranked by one-month rent change …

Santa Ana: $2,111 monthly median new lease rate, down 1.9% in a month, up 0.5% in a year, and up 22% in three years.

San Francisco: $2,196 monthly, down 1.7% in a month, up 2% in a year, and down 13% in three years.

San Diego: $2,345 monthly, down 1.4% in a month, up 4.6% in a year, and up 27% in three years.

San Jose: $2,386 monthly, down 1.3% in a month, up 6.6% in a year, and up 3% in three years.

Los Angeles: $1,873 monthly, down 1% in a month, up 1.7% in a year, and up 6% in three years.

Long Beach: $1,678 monthly, down 0.9% in a month, up 4% in a year, and up 17% in three years.

Sacramento: $1,624 monthly, down 0.8% in a month, down 1.8% in a year, and up 20% in three years.

Oakland: $1,628 monthly, down 0.7% in a month, down 2.8% in a year, down 15% in three years.

Fresno: $1,299 monthly, down 0.2% in a month, up 1.6% in a year, and up 23% in three years.

Anaheim: $2,227 monthly, up 0.2% in a month, up 3.8% in a year, and up 26% in three years.

Bottom line

Ponder 2022’s economic timeline: Reduced coronavirus fears. Workers going back to the office. Students return to classrooms. On top of that, toss in some economic anxieties.

That nudged many renters, or potential renters, to think they no longer needed separate or larger living spaces. This took the steam out of demand for housing, translating to extra empty rentals for many landlords.

So now we’re seeing a sale on rents – discounting that could run throughout much of 2023.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

“Survey says” looks at various rankings and scorecards judging geographic locations while noting these grades are best seen as a mix of artful interpretation and data.

Buzz: The Inland Empire is home to California’s wildest home-price swings.

Source: My trusty spreadsheet tallied annual changes in home values in seven big California markets, as calculated by Federal Housing Finance Agency indexes dating to 1978. Rankings tracked four factors: the gap between best and worst years; the share of down years; a geeky measure of price-swing variations called “standard deviation;” and the 44-year average price gain. The final grade was an average ranking of these four yardsticks.

Topline

As California housing seems headed toward a price correction in 2023, it’s time to see what history tells us where large gyrations in home values happen the most frequently in the state.

The housing market of Riverside and San Bernardino counties took the top spot because it was No. 1 in all four volatility yardsticks. The Inland Empire’s housing market has an up-and-down history due the region’s fast-growth and erratic economic history.

Next came the Sacramento metro area, followed by Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties, then the San Jose and San Francisco metro areas.

Details

Let’s look inside the rankings to see how values within these markets have varied since 1978.

No. 1 Inland Empire: There’s a 57 percentage-point gap between the biggest gain of 29% in 2004 and the largest loss of 28% in 2008. This market suffered down years 30% of the time, with a typical 10.6 percentage-point variation in year-to-year price swings. Local prices have gained an average 5.8% a year.

No. 2 Sacramento: The metro area’s 45-point gap between its biggest gain of 25% in 1978 and the largest loss of 20% in 2008. Down years 25% of the time. A 9.8-point price-swing variation. Average gain of 6% a year.

No. 3 Los Angeles County: A 43-point gap between its biggest gain of 26% in 2005 and largest loss of 17% in 2008. Down years 30% of the time. A 9.5-point price-swing variation. Average gain of 6.3% a year.

No. 4 Orange County: A 44-point gap between biggest gain of 26% in 2004 and the largest loss of 18% in 2008. Down years 25% of the time. A 9.1-point price-swing variation. Average gain of 6.1% a year.

No. 5 San Diego County: A 42-point gap between biggest gain of 25% 2004) and the largest loss of 17% (2008). Down years 27% of the time. A 8.8-point price-swing variation. Average gain of 6.2% a year.

No. 6 San Jose: The metro area’s 43-point gap between biggest gain of 30% (1989) and largest loss of 12% (2009). Down years 25% of the time. A 9-point price-swing variation. Average gain of 6.9% a year.

No. 7 San Francisco: The metro area’s 32-point gap between biggest gain of 23% (2000) and largest loss of 9% (2008). Down years 27% of the time. A 8.8% price-swing variation. Average gain of 6.9% a year.

Caveat

Let’s remember, California’s overall housing market has historically gone through wilder peaks and valleys than the rest of the U.S. This means most national home-price forecasts have little value to a California property watcher.

Look at the differences in these volatility measures for the California and U.S. FHFA indexes – with a stock average (Wilshire 500 index) tossed in for comparative purposes.

Best year: Up 24% (2005) for California homes, up 14% (1978) for U.S. homes and up 37% (1983) for stocks.

Worst year: Off 20% (2008) for California homes, off 6% (2009). for U.S. homes and off 22% (2009) for stocks.

Extremes gap: 43 percentage points between best and worst years for California homes, 20 for U.S. homes, and 59 for stocks.

Down years since 1978: 27% for California homes, 11% for U.S. homes, and 18% for stocks.

Price-swing variance: 9.1 percentage points for California homes, 4.3 for U.S. homes, and 13 for stocks.

Average gain since 1978: 6.2% for California homes, 4.7% for U.S. homes, and 10.1% for stocks.

Bottom line

Falling home prices in California are not just the result of events surrounding the 2008 global financial meltdown and housing collapse.

In the decade of recovery from the mid-2000s housing bust, the seven markets have had a total of five down years. So, even before you ponder overvalued homes, high mortgage rates and growing economic uncertainty, California housing seems overdue for a price correction.

And recent gains seem unsustainable, especially since mortgage rates soared in much of 2022.

Peek at the one-year home-price gains for the seven markets through September, the latest FHFA indexes available, and how that gain would rank among all other full-year results back to 1978.

Inland Empire’s 18% increase would be its seventh-best since 1978. Orange County’s 17% would be No. 5; San Diego 17% (No. 6); San Jose 15% (No. 8); Los Angeles County 15% (No. 9); San Francisco 12% (No. 17); Sacramento 10% (No. 16).

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Across California, 376,000 workers left their job voluntarily in October. That’s unchanged from September and 25% below the record-shattering 499,000 quits of February 2022. This was the fewest number of workers telling the boss “I’m done” in 19 months.

The ups and downs of quitting are carefully eyeballed as an indicator of worker confidence in the employment market. Folks usually don’t leave a job without good odds of securing another paycheck. So the fact that California quits declined – U.S. resignations are 11% off their peak, too – might feel like an economic warning signal.

But my trusty spreadsheet’s analysis of October’s federal employment stats tracking California quits shows the resignation slowdown doesn’t mean the worker is giving up much of their workplace muscle.

Yes, quitting a job – the workplace rage in the pandemic era – isn’t as popular as it once was.

October’s quits equaled 2.1% of all California workers. That’s the seventh-lowest share among the states and down from 2.4% a year earlier. Nationally, 2.6% of workers quit in October, off from 2.8% 12 months earlier. So less quitting isn’t just a Golden State thing.

By the way, Alaska workers were the most likely to quit – 4.7% of them voluntarily left their jobs in October. Then came Wyoming at 3.9% and Mississippi at 3.7%. Least likely to quit: Connecticut and New York with a 1.7% quit rate. Next was New Jersey at 1.9%.

Feeling frustrated

Diminished worker loyalties have frustrated bosses, making staffing challenging and escalating payroll costs.

So employers might cheer the news that quitting’s down in California and in many parts of the nation. There’s been plenty of speculation as to why quitting rose – from changing societal views on work to lingering fears of coronavirus to debates over a huge pandemic-era job change: the option to work from home.

Or could fewer quits be a signal that the Federal Reserve’s efforts to cool an overheated economy are weighing on workers’ career decisions?

The reality is more likely a mild cooling of a hot trend. Resignations are still 42% above the pre-pandemic 2000-2019 monthly average.

Or look at it this way: In the first 10 months of 2022, 4.3 million Californians quit. Those resignations equal the full-year average pace of pre-pandemic 2018-19.

Workers know their bosses have few options. Unemployment statewide hit a record-low 3.8% in September 2022.

And they also see bosses being part of the problem because employers were actually incentivizing quitting.

Job switchers nationwide averaged 7.3% raises in October, according to monthly wage indexes from the Atlanta Fed. Those who stayed in their jobs only got a 5.3% pay hike.

This 2-percentage-point gap was nearly triple the 0.7-point average difference between pay hikes received by switchers and stayers found in data dating to 1997.

These scores of workers switching jobs – or bosses fearing their staffs might bolt – helped boost California pay.

Average weekly wages are up 15% in three years vs. 13% gains in 2016-19, 7% in 2013-16, and 4% in 2010-13 – just after the Great Recession.

But paychecks also offer one hint that demand for help is easing: Wages statewide in the 12 months ending in September were up just 2.6%, the smallest raises in six years by this math.

Help wanted

Think back to the pandemic’s opening days when “We’re Closed” signs – not “Help Wanted” – were most commonly seen at local businesses.

Loyalty was lofty as coronavirus lockdowns iced the economy and unemployment nearly tripled to 16%.

In April 2020, the number of Californians who quit their job plunged by 45% in a single month to 182,000. That’s half of October 2022’s quits. It was also the slowest pace of quitting since 2012.

Or consider this longer-term view.

Since 2000, when California’s quits topped 300,000 – as they have every month since December 2020 – unemployment has averaged 5.3%.

But when fewer than 300,000 Californians quit in a month during the past 22 years, joblessness averaged 8.4%.

Bosses, the workers know what they’re doing.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

The “Looking Glass” ponders economic and real estate trends through two distinct lenses: the optimist’s “glass half-full” and the pessimist’s “glass half-empty.”

Buzz: Relocation trends by van line suggest California’s outmigration challenges – more residents departing than arriving – are shrinking but still appear immense.

Source: My trusty spreadsheet looked at California moving van activity for 2022 based on annual migration reports from the Allied, Atlas and United van lines. I’ve collected these stats dating back to 2004, comparing them to overall interstate relocation patterns from population reports created by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Debate: Have we seen the worst of the California “exodus” as life – and the economy – return to a pre-pandemic normal? Could California’s three-year declining population streak be nearing its end?

Glass half-full

Van data says the share of exits among all California moves shrank in 2022. The three-company average shows 55.7% of 2022 moving van activity was outbound to other states. That’s down from 59.5% in 2021 and 58.5% in 2020.

Conversely, 44.3% of California van moves last year were inbound vs. 40.5% in 2021, and 41.5% in 2020.

That translates to a van migration “gap” between California departures and arrivals of 11.3 percentage points in favor of exits last year. But that’s down from a 17-point gap in 2020 and a 19-point difference in 2020.

Glass half-empty

Now, look at 2022 van moves compared with trends during 16 years of pre-pandemic life. You’ll see that the recent dips in outflow don’t erase a trend line portraying elevated outmigration.

Outbound? 55.7% exits in 2022 vs. 51.7% on average in 2004-2019.

Inbound? 44.3% arrivals last year vs. 48.3% on average in 2004-2019.

The gap? 11.4 points of outmigration in 2022 vs. 3.4% on average in 2004-2019.

Bottom line

Remember, “outmigration” is the difference between the exits and arrivals. California’s most recent population challenge is that few Americans want to, or can afford to, relocate to the Golden State.

California’s population has traditionally grown despite the domestic movement drag. The state enjoys far more births than deaths. But as the state population ages, that gap has narrowed. Also, immigration from other nations has slowed for a host of reasons.

Let’s also note that using a van line is a narrow and costly niche for relocations, though it’s a noteworthy slice because they’re typically a sign of movement among the wealthy.

Yet statistically speaking, patterns in van moves align with overall outmigration trends.

Consider that in the year ended in July 2022, Census counted 343,230 more Californians exiting the state than new arrivals. Like the van moves, that was a 25% improvement over 2021’s 458,951 outmigration. However, it was 42% higher than locked-down 2020’s 242,313.

And 2022’s overall outmigration, like moving van results, is still well above par. Using the same long-term lens I placed on van moves – the 2004-2019 average – last year’s Census outmigration for the overall population was 143% above the 141,108 historical pace of California’s net outflow.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Stock price moves are typically digested on a daily – if not minute-to-minute – basis using short-term yardsticks for the ups and downs. As 2022 drew to a close, we could dissect the dismal annual outcome for stocks within seconds of the year’s closing bell.

Yet home prices – a huge slice of many households’ net worths – are tabulated at a far slower pace.

Data collection is lethargic. And that sales data is analyzed by the industry using longer-term metrics – a month of activity or more – and frequently tracked using 12-month “year-over-year” measurements of change. We will wait weeks, if not months, for a final accounting of home prices for 2022.

So as a fun exercise, I filled my trusty spreadsheet with daily closing prices for the broad Wilshire 5000 stock index dating back to 2000. I compared two measurements, both using 12-month change, to simulate housing-like analysis for stocks.

One yardstick was what I’ll call “real-time” – the last trading day of a month vs. a year earlier’s result. The other is the same 12-month math just using a three-month moving average of the Wilshire 5000. This is a rough replica of housing’s widely watched Case-Shiller indexes.

What I learned was that the three-month averages when looking at year-over-year stock results do little to smooth out short-run gyrations. One geeky volatility measure called “standard deviation” shows this moving average with only 6% less volatility than real-time results since 2000.

But what three-month averages with a 12-month focus clearly do is delay seeing big market moves. Just ponder the stock market’s response to the pandemic when measured by these two price prisms.

Crushing blow

Coronavirus cratered the economy in early 2020 as the stock market was coming off a great 2019: a 28% real-time gain – last day of the year vs. 12 months earlier, the best result in six years, and a 14% 12-month gain for my 3-month average, the biggest gain in 14 months.

But the pandemic era’s initial lockdowns crushed stocks. Economic unknowns pushed the real-time results to a 12% year-over-year loss by the end of March 2020. My 3-month average cooled to an 11% gain at the same moment.

In May 2020, with massive economic stimulus packages in place and the economy slowly reopening, the real-time index already was rebounding, up 8% year over year. The 3-month average was still digesting the lockdowns and was off 5% year over year.

By July, both benchmarks were positive – up 5% for the 3-month average year over year as the real-time measure jumped 10% as an unexpectedly strong economic revival was unfolding.

And at the year’s end of 2020, as vaccines were on the way to dampen the pandemic’s health issues, stocks in real-time were up 18% for the year and my 3-month average was up 16%.

More pandemic stimulus helped created a business boom. So outsized stock market gains continued in 2021: up 30% for the year by the 3-month average’s tally and 26% for the real-time measurement.

Then came 2022 and the Federal Reserve’s fears of an overheated economy, asset bubbles and 40-year high inflation. The central bank’s attempt to cool the economy with interest-rate hikes in 2022 was bad news for stocks.

Again, the market response was muted through the moving-average lens. By April 2022, the real-time index was flat year over year but showed an 8% gain for my 3-month average.

It wasn’t until June 2022 that both indexes were losers – down 4% year over year for the 3-month average vs. a 14% drop in real time.

And the year ended badly on both scorecards: an 18% loss for the 3-month average vs. a 21% dip for real time.

Bottom line

The end of a year is a rare time people chat about the stock market’s 12-month performance.

Stocks trade every business day so it’s a fantasy to see any shift away from that market’s short-term thinking. If nothing else, need-to-know-now is human nature.

But my fellow stockholders, some long-term perspectives will be required to grapple with the ugly year-end investment statements coming to the mailbox.

Compared with stocks, it feels like we’re hopelessly behind when it comes to tracking home prices.

It’ll be late January for the first of many year-end home price reports. And it’ll be late February before the final 2022 Case-Shiller numbers – that three-month price average.

These delays are especially troublesome when housing’s status is so muddied as 2023 begins.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

”Survey says” looks at various rankings and scorecards judging geographic locations while noting these grades are best seen as a mix of artful interpretation and data.

Buzz: Only two states are worse deals for renters than California.

Source: My trusty spreadsheet compared Census Bureau housing data from 2021 through 2016 for 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

To create a value metric for renting, states were scored on five-year changes in rental costs, the 2021 share of financially burdened renters, the burden’s change in 2016-21, the five-year change in rental households, and residents per rental unit in 2021.

Rankings were derived from each state’s average grade.

Topline

My scorecard put California as the third-worst value for renters ahead of only Nevada and Arizona. After California came Georgia and Florida.

The best states were North Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Montana and Ohio.

Details

These five years of housing history included a pandemic push to find larger living spaces and mortgage rates at historic lows, which boosted homeownership by 11% nationwide vs. 1% growth in renter households.

Sadly, folks who didn’t own a home were hit by with soaring rent costs and significant stress on family finances.

But let’s start with the basics. California had the most renting households with 5.73 million or 13.6% of the nation’s 42 million. Those tenants equal 44% of households in the state, the third-largest largest share of renters behind. D.C. at 58% and New York at 45%. After California was Nevada at 41%, and Hawaii and Texas at 37%.

But consider a measure of popularity (or not), the five-year change in the number of renters.

California saw tenant households shrink by 1.5% between 2016 and 2021. That still ranked 34th best.

The biggest dip was in West Virginia, off 9.9%, then Hawaii, off 6.2%, Michigan, off 6.1%, Rhode Island, off 6% and Louisiana, off 4.8%. In total, 24 states had fewer renters.

Utah had the No. 1 gain with 18% more renters, then D.C. at 10%. Texas was up 9%, New Jersey rose 6% and Washington state increased by 5%.

So why the California decline? Eye the price tag.

Renting in California had a $1,750-a-month median cost in 2021, with only Hawaii higher at $1,774. After California came D.C. at $1,668, Colorado at $1,491 and Massachusetts at $1,487.

But it’s really about how much rent moved upward.

California tenants suffered the sixth-biggest rent-cost inflation in 2016-21 – up 27%. Top increases were found in Idaho, Washington state, and Nevada at 31%, Arizona at 28% and Colorado at 27%.

Those rising rents made balancing a household budget work tricky.

Lofty rent expenses left 3.2 million California tenant households financially “burdened,” which is defined as 30% or more of income going to housing costs.

No state had more. No. 2 was Texas at 2 million, New York at 1.8 million Florida at 1.6 million and Illinois at 745,000.

That financially struggling flock means 56% of California tenants were defined as “burdened” by rent vs. 51% nationally and the third-highest U.S. level of “unaffordability.”

Florida had the largest share of burdened renters at 59%, then Hawaii at 58%. Louisiana and Nevada followed California with 56%.

Perhaps the best news in the Census rental report for California tenants was that the number of burdened renters fell in 2016-21 – down 1%. But that decline is more tied to the drop in renters statewide that any financial progress.

Nationally, financially stressed renters rose by 4% nationally with increases in 34 states. The biggest jump was in Utah, up 26%, then Alaska at 21%, Wyoming at 18%, Texas at 17% and Nevada at 14%.

And tenants jam into California’s pricey rentals.

In 2021, the typical California rental unit had 2.73 people – the highest in the nation. No. 2 was Hawaii at 2.67, then Utah at 2.51, Nevada at 2.49 and Mississippi at 2.45. Florida was No. 7 at 2.43.

Note that “crowded” housing isn’t just about sharing costs. Density is often high in states like California and Utah which have relatively youthful populations with many families with children.

Bottom line

To help explain poor rankings like California’s, I sliced the states into thirds – from worst grades to best. What did it tell me about the 17 lowest-value states for rentals?

They’re pricey: Rent expenses ran $1,382 a month in the low-ranked states in 2021 vs. $957 in the top-value states. That’s a 44% gap.

They’re getting pricier: These costs grew 24% in the bottom 17 between 2016 and 2021 vs. a 16% gain in top-value states.

They’re a bigger burden: 37% of renters in low-ranked states were financially stressed in 2021 by housing costs vs. 31% in top-value states.

They’re crowded: 2.44 people per rental unit in low-ranked states vs. 2.13 in top-value states.

But renters seem to flock to places that might roughly pencil out as a bum deal.

Low-ranked states had 24.3 million renter households in 2021 vs. 8.4 million in top-ranked states. And over five years, the renter group grew by 1.7% in low-ranked states while shrinking 1.3% in top-value states.

Why the popularity of seemingly low-graded states? Real estate’s three-most important words: Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.

The lowest-ranked states created 3 million jobs in 2016-2021 vs. a loss of 460,000 jobs in the top-value states.

Renters seek opportunity, even if it’s a costlier voyage.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Buzz: It’s funny how the vast range of viewpoints about California life shows up in a random collection of surveys with the Golden State more often found at the top or bottom of state-by-state rankings.

Source: California’s standing in a dozen recent scorecards on a wide variety of topics.

Topline

There are too many state-vs.-state rankings. But they can be fun and thought-provoking.

Some rankings are created to give the public a better understanding of each state’s pluses and minuses. Other scorecards help push various big-picture policy debates. And many of these surveys are simply brain candy that might get you to click through to a sponsoring institution’s website.

Details

California, ranked from high score to low. However, depending on your view of the state or the topic graded, high might not be best and low might not be worst!

Being green: California ranks No. 1, says the ACEEE State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. This math looked at energy-saving efforts involving utilities, transportation, building codes and appliance standards. No. 2 was Massachusetts. Last was Wyoming.

Tax-free smokes: California ranks as the No. 2 state for cigarette smuggling based on data from 47 states compiled by the Tax Foundation. The study links high taxes (California ranks No. 8 at $2.87 a pack) to the illegal inflow of untaxed cigarettes. Smuggling’s No. 1 was Connecticut ($4.35 a pack tax). Last was New Hampshire ($1.78 tax).

Being your own boss: California ranks No. 3 as a place to start a business, says a review by Lensa of start-up factors such as the rate of new entrepreneurs, corporate tax rate and venture capital. No. 1 was Texas. Last was North Dakota.

Jogging joy: California ranks No. 3 for runners, says a study by Fitness Volt. These grades were based on tracking natural beauty, safety, elevation, marathons, air quality and temperature. No. 1 was Florida. Last was Kansas.

Stay close to home: California ranks No. 3 for “least travel-obsessed state,” according to a study by Family Destinations Guide. This look at Google searches of terms like “beach vacations,” “travel agent” and “cheap hotels” suggests the states where folks don’t feel they have to go elsewhere for relaxation. No. 1 was Washington state. Last was South California.

The golden years: California ranks No. 7 best state for retirees, according to the math of the Global Residence Index. The scorecard looked at environmental quality, life expectancy, crime and the flock of 65-plus residents. It did not consider the cost of living. No. 1 was Washington. Last was Alabama.

Woof! Woof! California had a rare mid-range ranking of No. 23 for the quality of a dog’s life. Ourfitpets.com ranked states for dog-friendliness based on stats such as veterinarians, parks, dog-friendly rentals, dog sitters and crime rates. No. 1 was Vermont. Last was Louisiana.

Drive-through urges: California ranks No. 38 for “fast food-obsessed residents,” according to work done by cost-tracker Pricelisto. This benchmark pondered various Google searches for terms relating to quick-serve dining. No. 1 was Nebraska. Last was Vermont.

Leaving town: California ranks No. 41 for interest in moving, says TexasRealEstateSource.com. This measure of relocation interest was created by studying Google searches for terms frequently used by people interested in moving. No. 1 was South Carolina. Last? Hawaii.

Being charitable: California ranks No. 42 for philanthropy, says WalletHub. This scorecard looked at factors such as how much is donated, its share of income and volunteer options and activities. No. 1 was Utah. Last was Arizona.

Being red: California ranks No. 42 for conservative politics, says the Center for Legislative Accountability. This ranking, a grade that should surprise almost nobody, was based on an analysis of legislative voting on policy areas including culture, tax, fiscal and regulatory policies. No. 1 was Tennessee. Last was Massachusetts.

Cost of fun: California ranks No. 48 for “safe and affordable girls’ night outs,” says rankings from fashion experts Nasty Gal. They looked at the prices of cocktails, cabs, fast food, wine and a party dress. No. 1 was Wisconsin. Last was Texas.

Bottom line

What did I learn? California can score high if its high cost of living can be ignored. That’s basically the grand debate.

Is the Golden State’s lifestyle worth it?

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

”Survey says” looks at various rankings and scorecards while noting these grades are best seen as a mix of artful interpretation and data.

Buzz: California has 2.4 million households living what many consider a dream – being a free-and-clear homeowner, the third-highest count among the states.

Source: My trusty spreadsheet reviewed Census data tracking homeowners – dividing households between those living with or without mortgages – for 2021 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Topline

Where were most owners free and clear of any home loan in 2021?

They’re in Texas at 2.9 million, and Florida at 2.5 million. After California comes New York at 1.7 million and Pennsylvania at 1.5 million.

Yet no-mortgage owners in California are only 33% of all homeowners – and only four places have a smaller share: D.C. at 24%, Maryland at 28% and Colorado and Utah at 30%.

West Virginia has the largest share of free-and-clear owners at 53%, followed by Mississippi at 51%, North Dakota and New Mexico at 47% and Louisiana at 46%. By the way, Texas and Florida were both at 43%.

Details

Ponder the relatively modest ownership costs of free-and-clear life.

Census tracks the expenses owners incur for their shelter such as property taxes, insurance, routine operation and upkeep of the residence, and mortgage payments – or not, in the case of the free-and-clear crowd.

In California, that spending translated to median monthly housing cost for a no-mortgage household of $694 in 2021. That was the ninth-highest among the states and not terribly surprising considering Californias pricey cost of living.

The priciest states for free-and-clear owners were New Jersey at $1,081, then Connecticut at $926, Massachusetts at $871, New Hampshire at $860 and New York at $813. These are states known for huge property tax bills.

Where do we find the lowest costs for no-mortgage owners? West Virginia was $338, then Mississippi at $356, Arkansas and Louisiana at $372, and Alabama at $379. By the way, Texas was No. 18 at $567, and Florida was No. 21 at $548.

Now compare those monthly expenses to the extra spending by owners with mortgages.

In California, the median cost was $2,523 a month in 2021 – No. 3 behind only D.C. at $2,639 and Hawaii at $2,584. These are among the priciest places to buy a home in the nation and big home loans are usually required to make a purchase. After California in this cost ranking was New Jersey at $2,458 and Massachusetts at $2,323.

The lowest costs were found in West Virginia at $1,071, then Arkansas at $1,147, Indiana at $1,195, Mississippi at $1,200 and Alabama at $1,223. Rival Texas was No. 16 at $1,765 and Florida was No. 22 at $1,616.

Let’s think about the no-mortgage owner’s savings on a percentage basis.

In California, 2021’s free-and-clear costs were 72% below those paid by mortgaged households, No. 3 among the states with Louisiana and Nevada. Bigger savings were only found in Hawaii at 77%, and Virginia at 73%.

The smallest savings were seen in Connecticut, New Jersey and Vermont at 56%, New Hampshire at 57% and Rhode Island at 61%. Texas was No. 24 at 68% and Florida, No. 31 at 66%.

Bottom line

Despite the low ownership costs for folks without a mortgage, meeting housing costs can still be a struggle.

In California, 17% of free-and-clear owners in 2021 were considered “burdened” by housing costs because they spend 30% or more of their income on shelter. That was the eighth-highest level nationwide.

At the top of the list were New Jersey with 23% of no-mortgage owners “burdened,” then came Connecticut and New York at 20%, Massachusetts at 19% and New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont at 18%. Texas was No. 13 highest at 14% and Florida was No. 8 at 17%.

Lowest? Utah at 9%, then Indiana, Tennessee and Virginia at 10%.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

It’s football’s bowl season, and it’s generating must-see competition on the playing field.

But when these holiday season games are done, the California economy still will provide plenty of noteworthy contests to be fought through 2023.

Coming off a nearly unpredictable 2022, which California economic players will be winners – or losers – in the coming year’s business battles?

Note the gyrations. In the summer quarter, California’s gross domestic product was growing at a 3.8% annual rate, 12th best among the states. That’s a reversal from the spring’s 0.5% drop. But the California economy grew 7.8% for all of 2021, No. 5 nationally.

So let’s handicap noteworthy financial skirmishes that will dominate 2023 business arena. Many of these economic clashes, like the flood of post-season football games, feature heated rivals who will be looking to gain an edge in long-running competitions. A sagging global economy also creates a slippery playing field for most business combatants.

So ponder my 2023 lineup of California Bowls that could decide if the state’s business scene avoids the ultimate losing streak – a recession.

Shrinking Beach Bowl (Surfers vs. Waves)

Surfers, the long-dominant, environmentally friendly crowd, may have run into their toughest opponent. Waves and angry seas pounding our shorelines are literally erasing California beaches.

A small strip of wave-wracked coastal train tracks in Orange County may be a battleground test. Transportation officials want to use boulders and other hardened surfaces as a salve. But such tactics have long-run ecological challenges.

Betting line: Waves and their serious commercial effects will make life tough for the Surfers.

Power Play Bowl (Greens vs. Chiefs)

Greens, California’s clean-energy contingent, has enjoyed a lengthy grasp of policy power. Chiefs, leaders of energy-producing businesses, are aggressively pushing back.

Utilities won a late 2022 battle to limit homeowners’ solar roof benefits. Oil producers seem ready to battle drilling limits and profit penalties. And 2022’s high gasoline prices soured numerous Californians on the cost of being green.

Betting line: The Greens will prevail, but it won’t be simple.

NoH2O Bowl (Lawns vs. Almonds)

California is essentially running out of water, so there’s likely no true winner in this tug of war. Who pays the water-shortage tab — residential or agricultural users? Lawns go brown or Almonds go fallow?

This game’s subplot is that this is basically a cross-state war that pits inland farmers against big-city coastal types.

Betting line: Almonds and other non-essential crops will be “losers,” but the loss will be iced over with farmers being paid not to use water. Yet this is only a short-run truce in this conflict.

Homebuying Crash Bowl (Sellers vs. TBD)

Sellers were the pandemic era’s economic MVPs – until the Federal Reserve crashed the homebuying playing field in mid-2022 with soaring mortgage rates to slow runaway inflation.

Sellers now find their old opponent, the House Hunters, a no-show thanks to inflated house payments. So owners have to determine if they’ll fight with fellow owners by cutting prices or take a “bye” and sit the year out.

Betting line: Sellers will get antsy and battle other owners with noteworthy price cuts.

Tech Trash Bowl (Dreamers vs. Bottom Lines)

Dreamers, aka entrepreneurs with wild tech-laden ideas, in every cycle seemingly get flooded with investment dollars. It creates what’s appears to be an endless winning streak. Bottom Liners stay on the sidelines until a whiff of trouble strikes, and then insist on old-school results: profits.

So technology’s upswing was trashed in late 2022, falling into a layoff-filled losing streak.

Betting line: Bottom Liners control 2023, and that’s worrisome for California and the national economy.

Cubicle Bowl (Bosses vs. Worker Bees)

Bosses have owned this contest ever since the Great Recession put fear into the job market. Worker Bees, however, deftly used the pandemic’s remote work shift to put this rivalry on more level ground.

Back-to-the-office moves have well received by employees, leaving huge corner office questions such as future staffing and the value of office space.

Betting line: Workers Bees don’t want cubicle life but risk losing momentum if a significant recession hits in 2023. Call it a draw.

Robots-R-Us Bowl (Humans vs. Machines)

Humans have less than politely told employers what they think of menial tasks. Machines – robots, phone apps, ordering kiosks and the like – might be employers’ best hope for salvation because heavily inflated salaries aren’t filling these job openings.

Betting line: This could end in a happy tie. Machines could fill some worker shortages. Humans could win more meaningful work.

Sports Spending Spree Bowl (Billionaires vs. Realities)

Billionaires in 2022 seem to have endless piles of cash to pay record prices for anything sporting – from marquee players to international athletic events to entire franchises. Economic realities should have slowed the sprint, logic says, but it appears the biggest checkbook still is the winning formula.

Betting line: Realties are losers because rich folks are ignoring the traditional economic playbook. Imagine the crazy-high price tag we’ll likely see on the Anaheim Angels in 2023.

Business Breakup Bowl (ESPN vs. Disney)

Speaking of sports and cash, ESPN is the athletic world’s information diamond. Its owner, Walt Disney Co., has a lagging stock and management discord. Would Disney jettison ESPN to soothe unhappy shareholders?

Betting line: An ESPN spinoff is an easy call for Disney’s new/old CEO Bob Iger. But companies sometimes cannot finish with an easy layup.

“That Costs How Much?” Bowl (Hawks vs. Doves)

Inflation was the economy’s trend-changing champion of 2022. Hawks want the Fed to keep up its intense fight against the painfully pricey cost of living. Doves fear the central bank’s economic throttle will prove too tight, creating a recession.

Betting line: This is the big “national” game of the year. Hawks will win, assuming the Fed’s “head coach” Jerome Powell is being honest about his team’s conviction to conquer inflation.

Mall Makeover Bowl (Bricks vs. Clicks)

Bricks were perhaps the economic “upset” victors of the year. Shoppers returned to brick-and-mortar stores for face-to-face retailing and cooled their clicking for goods online.

Clicks have had to rethink their click-to-buy strategy and overly rosy projections of retailing dominance. What’s the future of all those warehouses in California’s inland cities?

Betting line: If a recession does hit, lower costs will be the difference maker (and that’s good for Clicks.)

Bottom line

The best scouting reports suggest most economic players will act like the pandemic era’s surprising economic winning streak will likely end in 2023.

That means power – profit or policy – will gravitate toward lower-cost options as consumers and corporations play conservatively.

How long and/or deep the California “losing steak” becomes is the big question.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

“Memory Lane” takes a stroll through financial history because the economy has a funny habit of repeating itself.

Buzz: Californians are once again antsy about money as one measurement of economic confidence finishes 2022 with the steepest descent in four years.

Source: My trusty reviewed the slice of the Conference Board’s monthly consumer confidence indexes that tracks the financial expectations of shoppers in eight states and across the U.S. To measure that economic psyche, I looked at 12-month changes between each year’s final three months from a forward-looking yardstick that dates to 2007.

Topline: California expectations for personal finances are down 13% from year-end 2021 as this “too much good stuff” year winds down. This is the biggest drop in consumer prospects since 2018 and is a sharp contrast to the end of 2021, which ended with a 16% gain in expectations.

This sour outlook is not much better nationally, with a 14% drop in the U.S. expectations index – the worst since 2011. Conversely, year-end 2021 saw a 2% gain.

How long ago?

Let’s jog your memory, looking back four years ago when skittishness was elevated …

2018 headlines: The Camp Fire killed 85 Northern Californians, Democrats won the House and turned Orange County’s delegation all “blue.” Seventeen people were killed in a school shooting at Douglas High in Parkland, Fla.

2018 culture: Disney had the top movies (“Black Panther,” “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Incredibles 2”). Noteworthy new “partnerships” included LeBron James joining the Lakers and Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle. France won soccer’s World Cup.

The back story

What’s behind the “last time it was this bad” tale?

Economically speaking, 2018’s economic script might sound familiar. A huge stimulus (tax cuts) fueled the best U.S. gross domestic product growth in 13 years. California’s bosses grew payrolls by 2% as unemployment hit the then-lowest rate on record. But inflation hit a seven-year high. (That was 2.44%!) Mortgage rates finished 2018 at a seven-year high. (Ahem: 4.8%!)

Align those patterns with 2022 when the economy digested the end of 2020-21’s massive pandemic-era stimulus. GDP stalled but California jobs grew 5% in the ongoing pandemic rebound as statewide unemployment hit new record lows. Yet the economy was too hot: U.S. inflation (9%) and mortgages (7%) hit 40-year highs.

Those extremes help explain the 2022 year-end nervousness.

The result

The good news is that consumers’ year-end 2018 fears proved unjustified.

The following year, the Federal Reserve’s brief battle with inflation ended with a temporary victory, allowing interest rates to decline. Housing’s short-lived stall concluded. GDP chilled slightly. California employment grew by 1.5% and joblessness continued a record-breaking tumble.

History lesson?

Shoppers’ 2018 crystal ball was foggy. Consider 2011, when expectations fell 16%. The following year also was fairly good as the economy continued its post-Great Recession rebound.

However, there was 2008, in the middle of the global financial meltdown. Year-end expectations collapsed by 44%. That huge drop was a correct guess: 2009 was even nastier for household finances.

So the bottom line is that consumers can get a little carried away with their economic fears. But do not totally ignore them!

Elsewhere

The seven other states tracked, ranked by the size of their 2022 year-end slips in expectations …

Michigan: 30% drop – worst since the index started.

Florida: 18% drop – worst since 2008.

Ohio: 18% drop – worst since 2020.

Texas: 8% drop – worst since 2020.

Pennsylvania: 8% drop – since 2020.

New York: 5% drop – worst since 2019.

Illinois: 1% drop – worst since 2018.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com