Joel Kotkin on the rise and fall of the Golden State:
Twenty-five years ago, along with another young journalist, I coauthored a book called California, Inc. about our adopted home state. The book described “California’s rise to economic, political, and cultural ascendancy.”
As relative newcomers at the time, we saw California as a place of limitless possibility. And over most of the next two decades, my coauthor, Paul Grabowicz, and I could feel comfortable that we were indeed predicting the future.
But much has changed in recent years. And today our Golden State appears headed, if not for imminent disaster, then toward an unanticipated, maddening, and largely unnecessary mediocrity.
Since 2000, California’s job growth rate— which in the late 1970s surged at many times the national average—has lagged behind the national average by almost 20 percent. Rapid population growth, once synonymous with the state, has slowed dramatically. Most troubling of all, domestic out-migration, about even in 2001, swelled to over 260,000 in 2007 and now surpasses international immigration. Texas has replaced California as the leading growth center for Hispanics.
Out-migration is a key factor, along with a weak economy, for the collapse of the housing market. Simply put, the population growth expected for many areas has not materialized, nor the new jobs that might attract newcomers. In the past year, four of the top six housing markets in terms of price decline have been in California, including Sacramento, San Diego, Riverside, and Los Angeles. The Central Valley towns of Stockton, Merced, and Modesto have all been awarded the dubious honors of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation during the past year.
Even with prices down, many of the most desirable places in California are also among the most unaffordable in the nation. Less than 15 percent of households earning the local median income can afford a home in L.A. or San Francisco. In Santa Barbara, San Diego, Oxnard, Santa Cruz, or San Jose, it’s less than a third. That’s about half the number who can buy in the big Texas or North Carolina markets. Moreover, state officials warned in October that they might have to seek as much as $7 billion in loans from the U.S. Treasury. This is a disappointing turn for a state that once saw itself as the harbinger of the future.
Not surprisingly, few Californians see a turnaround soon. In the most recent Field Poll in July, a record high 63 percent of Californians said they are financially worse off than they were a year ago, while a record low 14 percent described themselves as better off. Poll director Mark DiCamillo called it “the broadest sentiment of pessimism we’ve ever seen.”
Of course, California can still attract many newcomers, particularly young and ambitious people who dream of a career in Hollywood or Silicon Valley. The problem is that when you grow up and have failed to secure your own dotcom or television series, life in Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, or even Kansas starts looking better. According to real estate analysts, the only thing preventing the current outflow from being worse is that homeowners cannot sell their residences in order to move.
All of this suggests a historic slide of California’s role as a bastion of upward mobility. In 1946, Californians enjoyed the nation’s highest living standards and the third highest per-capita income, noted journalist John Gunther. As recently as the 1980s, Californians generally got richer faster than other Americans did. Now, median household income growth trails the national average while the already large divide between the social classes—often bemoaned by the state’s political left—grows faster than in the rest of the country.
Today, notes a recent Public Policy Institute of California study, California has the 15th highest poverty rate in the nation. Only New York and the District of Columbia fare worse if the cost of living is factored in. Indeed, after accounting for cost of living, L.A., Monterey, and San Francisco counties—all places known for concentrations of wealth—have poverty populations of 20 percent. “San Francisco,” says historian Kevin Starr, a native of the city, “is a cross between Carmel and Calcutta.”
There’s a lot more — including the possibility of a happy ending.
Technorati Tags: investment, real estate, real estate marketing, technology
David Shafer says:
Very troubling for California. Jobs=real estate value. Lose jobs, lose re value. Its pretty simple. If no jobs, then people have to move elsewhere. The question is, will there ever be enough people for the supply of current houses? Or, is this a temporary phenomenon.
I wonder if re investors have already seen the handwriting on the wall and left town. I’ll have to give an old college buddy a call and see what he thinks (he runs a large private re investment firm in SoCal that has a ton of pension fund money).
I wonder if pollution is also pushing people out? Seems to me, friends in Boulder, Seattle, Portland,etc. have been complaining about Caifornians showing up for years, with a ton of money from selling their houses in California and driving those markets up??? These, mostly high tech people, untethered from a fixed job location find the nicest placest they can to live free from pollution, extreme traffic, etc.
I know several years ago I was offered a position in San Jose at a university there and after looking at the price of homes and realizing I would never be able to afford one on a professors salary, I passed.
November 16, 2008 — 7:09 am
Robert Kerr says:
I know several years ago I was offered a position in San Jose at a university there and after looking at the price of homes and realizing I would never be able to afford one on a professor’s salary, I passed.
That’s already changing, for the better. Salaries haven’t dropped 40% but the Bay Area SFH median price has. The ~$800K home in 2005 is now ~$450K. And there’s no indication this is the bottom for the Bay Area.
November 16, 2008 — 9:02 am
Robert Kerr says:
I won’t argue the specifics of the article, but I actually believe California’a future is bright.
Where are the growth industries for the next 2-3 decades? Health care and alternative energy. Both are driven by technology. And the technology centers should do well in the coming decades.
No question, California is in horrible financial shape right now and it needs to work through that and get spending under control but it’s one of the few states I’d bet on for the next 20 years as a job engine.
November 16, 2008 — 9:11 am
Brian Brady says:
“I know several years ago I was offered a position in San Jose at a university there and after looking at the price of homes and realizing I would never be able to afford one on a professors salary, I passed.”
Why didn’t you look into working for Google, then? I’m picking on Dave because I know him and he can handle it.
Dave, a full UCal professor might be the best job in the world. While the money you earn won’t put you on Obama’s tax radar, the hours are awfully good and afford you a chance to start a business. The contacts are amazing and the collaborative thought spawns wealth-creating, life changing ideas.
The real opportunity, in California, is in the opportunities. California is the intellectual bank of our nation, leading the way in wealth generation (and time and convenience are wealth) for the world. Life-saving drugs come out of California as did the wellness movement. Computing advanced from a big-ass room full of tubes to a 3.25″ screen, connecting 7-year olds with every corner of the planet.
The entertainment industry, our greatest American export, is headquartered some 90 miles north of me.
“As goes California, so goes the nation” is the slogan you hear in every big social movement. It might be wise to alter that to say “As goes California, so goes the world”
California is the world’s “blue-chip stock”; she’s just battered down for now. This isn’t civic pride talking, it’s the reason I moved here.
“No question, California is in horrible financial shape right now and it needs to work through that and get spending under control but it’s one of the few states I’d bet on for the next 20 years as a job engine.”
No doubt about that, Robert. We’ll get the spending under control but we’ll also create more opportunity than anywhere else. “Good” jobs are created in California, too.
It’s nice to see us in agreement- I value the company
November 16, 2008 — 10:34 am
Jeff Brown says:
Brian — Though I’ve always appreciated your infectious optimism, predicting a state as blue as CA will get its spending under control makes Dale Carnegie look like a grumpy old man.
Wondering what well financed startups and/or the CEOs of large/successful corps will look to when scouting CA as a serious locale? The Governator hasn’t convinced me he’s willing to even behave as a purple governor, much less red.
CA lost so many jobs due to its blue approach to taxing business and spending in general, we kicked the governor out. The Governator? All he’s done is slow the runaway spending train from breakneck speed to 100 mph.
Real estate investors remaining in CA the next decade will look back and wonder what they were thinking. There are so many other regions where their capital would’ve actually grown, rather than mimicking mutual fund performance in 401’s of the last 20 years.
I’d LOVE to tell folks CA’s the place to be. I’m a San Diegan for Heaven’s sake. But I hafta live with myself. Moderate leverage (20% down) in reliably growing regions w/excellent job growth, at current price/rent ratios that frankly shame CA income property, are what we think works for the foreseeable future.
The CA legislature is dominated by the tax/spend mindset. That doesn’t bode well for investors or for CA based firms IMHO.
November 16, 2008 — 10:57 am
Brian Brady says:
“I’d LOVE to tell folks CA’s the place to be. I’m a San Diegan for Heaven’s sake. But I hafta live with myself. Moderate leverage (20% down) in reliably growing regions w/excellent job growth, at current price/rent ratios that frankly shame CA income property, are what we think works for the foreseeable future.”
I agreed with you, Jeff…last year. Today, outstanding opportunities exist for a real estate investor in California, applying the same leverage formula. One, for example, is Oceanside. Properties are cash-flowing, with your leverage model, some 6-7 miles from the Pacific Ocean. These are properties that sold for twice as much as today, in 2006.
Reliable job growth? Camp Pendleton is 5 miles away, filled with ambitious young families, earning a housing allowance equal to or greater than the monthly property expenses. Unless America runs out of enemies, Pendleton job growth is stable (and increasing).
Long Beach/San Pedro offers similar opportunities for investors, right on the water. The Port of Los Angeles has added jobs to that economy in the midst of the slowdown.
Port Hueneme is well positioned to profit off the Navy’s influence and relative proximity to Hollywood and the Valley…that’s right on the ocean.
I haven’t even started my research on NorCal, yet. I expect there will be 5 to 1 leverage ratios there soon, as well.
You have an enviable track record identifying budding growth areas. I’m just taking the Warren Buffett approach and buying really quality stuff when it fits the model.
If you liked Coca-Cola at $60, and its funamental, long-term business still looks good, it’s a steal at $40. California real estate is like Coca-Cola, to me.
November 16, 2008 — 11:34 am
Jeff Brown says:
Brian — The reason I passed on the Oceanside deals is the same one I used to bypass Yuma. In five years the market for those homes will remain young military families. If the market has risen by then, they’re out of the market. Then you hafta ask, who’s gonna wanna live there? Not me. And not San Diego county home buyers for the last 40 years.
Every place you mention is, to me, a bar bet. You can certainly make decent deals now, but who’s gonna want ’em down the road? Buyin’ homes means owner users hafta be able to afford ’em when it’s time to sell. Will they?
To me it’s a Catch 22. If they go up we revisit yesteryear’s problems. If they don’t, why didn’t they? What happened to the price/rent ratios? I’m finding income property at just under 8.5 X Gross Scheduled Income. San Diego is now DOWN to 12-15 X GSI. I remain unimpressed.
I’ll believe it when I see it, ‘cuz having Southwest/Jet Blue know me on sight isn’t the way I want it. I’d rather stay home.
Meanwhile, the folks who think like you (an impressive number), spend 20% down on a $400K duplex in CA. They lose money like a sieve. In TX, KC, NC, SC, etc., they pay way under $300K and cash flow.
I pray you’re right and I’m back in CA sooner rather than later. I want you to be right. I just ain’t buyin’ quite yet. 🙂
November 16, 2008 — 12:00 pm
Bob says:
Brian, you have been reading to much of the former Sotheby’s broker’s propoganda (who btw, after pumping his agents full of shitake which they then republished, has closed it down).
Maybe you can get a menial return on your money in California, but that you can get a decent return outside of California. More importantly, your investors in Oside and Long Beach cant sell for the foreseeable future. If they break even in 5 years, they’ll be lucky. That isnt a safe minimum time frame for a Marine at Pendleton where the average is on a 2 year rotation. That is good for the rental market, but there are only so many investors out there willing to take that leveraged risk for so little return.
The Golden State is running a $28B deficit. taxes are going up and job losses will mount. The port jobs you mentioned are also going to be gone.
California doesn’t resemble Coke as much as it does Mervins and Circuit City.
@Jeff – Funny you mentioned Yuma. I killed a big deal there for an investor a few years back.
November 16, 2008 — 12:20 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Bob — I was a serial deal killer when it came to Yuma. 🙂 The three who ignored me are now running their race to retirement in quicksand.
Everyone touted the Air Force base. Really? Is one sergeant gonna sell to another in 5 years? They couldn’t qualify this time out. Again, a Catch 22. Property goes up, and less than officer can’t pull it off. If it doesn’t go up, what’s the point?
The template saying buy where military is main draw, is guarantee of stable job market populated by folks who can’t buy.
November 16, 2008 — 12:32 pm
Bob says:
My guys wanted to buy up the gated golf course communities for a buck ten a door, then rent them out or sell them to the snow birds.
November 16, 2008 — 12:40 pm
Robert Kerr says:
Brian — Though I’ve always appreciated your infectious optimism, predicting a state as blue as CA will get its spending under control makes Dale Carnegie look like a grumpy old man.
With all due respect, Jeff, it’s no longer a blue/red matter. Some of our biggest spenders are red – were you in a cave for the last eight years? – and some of the most frugal are blue.
Your stereoypes are so 1990.
November 16, 2008 — 2:08 pm
Brian Brady says:
Good article, Bob but the benchmark they use for the decline was an abnormal time period. Can anyone tell me why exports are down last month compared to the same month a year prior?
I think it would be short-sighted to compare Yuma to SoCal Coastal, Jeff. Yuma is a military town with Army and USMC. The upside there is the snowbird angle. Aside from guns and butter, there is no real industry to speak of in Yuma.
Oceanside is part of the greater San Diego metro. While Pendleton attracts a surplus of civilian jobs, too, the non-military job growth is coming from relocating companies.
Long Beach and Port Hueneme are both part of the LA metro (PH is a stretch, admittedly); there is a broad employment base there.
“Wondering what well financed startups and/or the CEOs of large/successful corps will look to when scouting CA as a serious locale?”
If you look at the top 10 VC deals in 2008, only 2 out of 10 were based in CA, although CA led all states on that list. That’s down form the year before where 6 out of the top 10 VC deals were in CA:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/138782/top_10_venture_capital_deals.html
That’s either a trend or a rush to “clean energy” companies this year.
If you think the kids in Silicon Valley are done innovating, you’d be naive. Expect more, not less, money to flow there as they seem to be the epicenter for the information-based economy.
Bob, a question for you: You suggest that the locations I suggested will be flat in 5 years. Does that mean they’re a buy if the price drops another 20%?
November 16, 2008 — 2:37 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Brian — Why ya gotta be such a killjoy with so many facts? 🙂
My bottom line remains the same. The baseline for SD property is around, or just below $400K. If I can get the same rents elsewhere for LESS than 2/3 the price, why would I advise clients to guy in SD — or anywhere else in CA?
Attached houses for under $125K renting for $1,200/mo remain the investment of choice. This is especially true when the investor can buy two at a whack at a duplex price, and sell years later at SFR owner-occ prices.
Unless the SoCal homes sellin’ for $250-400K are also rentin’ for $2,500-4,000/mo, I’m gonna keep tellin’ folks to Get Outa Dodge. 🙂 And as you know, I’d rather just be able to stay home and deal in local stuff exclusively. This ain’t a choice I really have on my current menu.
November 16, 2008 — 2:53 pm
Brian Brady says:
How about $180,000, renting for $1,700? That’s available on some REO properties. In fact, we closed on for an investor last month. We have another at $185,000, around the corner, expected to rent for $1,700.
My point is that opportunities ARE materializing, Jeff. There is a price when SoCal makes a helluva lot more sense than anywhere else- the trick is finding that price.
…but that’s value investing. The value V. growth argument is played out, across many markets, constantly. Competent practitioners of each discipline deliver superior results for investors.
PS- Bob, I chuckled at your reference to the former Del Mar broker because I spouted this philosophy, in his office, when it opened.
November 16, 2008 — 3:04 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Brian — Those are indeed my kinda properties. Those are solid numbers.
Too few and far between for the biz we do, but I genuinely like them. At this point I simply don’t have the confidence in SD’s long term outlook yet. My perception still isn’t optimistic.
I hafta believe SD’s gonna go up 3-7% the next several years before I spend the time it’ll surely take to mess with local REO’s one at a time with lenders who couldn’t care less if they tried. I realize that’s a little cynical, but that’s where I am currently.
November 16, 2008 — 3:23 pm
Tom Vanderwell says:
As a Michigan resident, I’ve read your comments with interest. I wish that Michigan’s turn around prospects were as good….
Tom
November 16, 2008 — 4:37 pm
J Boyer Morristown NJ says:
I would say that we have similar problems here in New Jersey. Not so much as this article relates to Foreclosures, but the seeming common desire for people to escape the oppressive tax environment.
November 16, 2008 — 7:01 pm
Steven Leung says:
When Brian’s on, he’s on, though I disagree on the VC trending. I’d like to add some points to his argument.
There’s still plenty of VC funding available — like lenders, they don’t get returns by sitting on cash.
I’m working with a company that did a Series B for $10MM just a couple weeks ago; VCs are risk-averse and run in packs, so deals now are about efficiency, not bragging rights about the largest numbers.
California’s global competitiveness isn’t accidental. One of the reasons for optimism in Northern California is continual evolution.
– From farmland (as The Valley of the Hearts Delight)
– To chips (which led to Silicon Valley and VC)
– To software
– Then biotech
– To the Internet
– To the dot-com bubble (pop!)
– To real business models (get off the mat.)
– To professional services
– To outsourcing
– To online services
– To Web 2.0 (fizz…)
– To real innovation
– Then clean tech
It’s in the culture to embrace change, even with the unknown associated with it.
The reason why companies stay is because of the network. One part is the talent pool, especially after layoffs, which because of voluntary buyout packages, tend to release all types of performers into the free market.
Ask a VC whether they’d rather fund a company that has to pay $150K for talent in Silicon Valley (which they can hire in weeks) or a company that pays $65K in Ft. Wayne, IN and has to wonder where it’s next hire is going to come from. (I pick on Ft. Wayne because I lived there as a kid.) At the multiples a VC is expecting, 2.5x for less risk is a no-brainer.
It’s easy to get caught up in negativity during the downside of a cycle.
And some negativity is important or else we’d blithely skip along powered only by our own self-satisfaction.
The problems we face in the economy and as a society are “better” than civil war, mass contagion, brinksmanship, sitting at the back of the bus. We overcame those.
Education, entitlements, dare I say housing prices and foreclosure? No individual can solve the large scale problems we face today, but it’s not time to wallow in self-pity because of their magnitude.
It’s time to reload, seize the opportunities created by global change and help create some jobs.
November 16, 2008 — 7:11 pm
Bob says:
Brian, I don’t think it will be flat for the next 5 years. That would still put one 5% down though. A break even in 5 years would be Nirvana. Work the numbers backwards.
Assuming only 10% more on the downside, plus a low 5% to sell, and you need 15% up to just to break even. I don’t see that happening over the next 5 years. If the downside is more than that, then the time frame grows.
Granted, that may be a short time frame for Jeff’s guys, but there are not enough of them around to sustain the market.
The other thing here is that if $200k a few blocks from the beach is what it takes to get investors going, then the rest of Oside (4 zip codes) is screwed.
November 16, 2008 — 7:22 pm
Brian Brady says:
Steven,
I don’t think the VC numbers are a trend; I think its an anomoly. Here’s a list of “green tech” VC fundings:
http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/2008/09/23/top-10-greentech-venture-fundings-of-2008-so-far-594/
7/10 are California companies (Nor and So). Two are from CO and one is from Germany.
“Education, entitlements, dare I say housing prices and foreclosure? No individual can solve the large scale problems we face today, but it’s not time to wallow in self-pity because of their magnitude.
It’s time to reload, seize the opportunities created by global change and help create some jobs.”
Amen, Steven. There is no better place than California to do just that. That’s why I moved here.
November 16, 2008 — 8:04 pm
Bob says:
Steven, I dont disagree. The thing is that San Diego isnt Silicon Valley. In fact, we are losing jobs here as both tech and bio tech have been bugging out of here for your neck of the woods because of the network.
One company spent 4 years fighting to get permits, then moved out of state. What they couldn’t get done here in those 4 years they accomplished elsewhere in 60 days.
It’s going to take more than the beach to turn this around. Certainly isn’t going to be our sports teams.
November 16, 2008 — 9:35 pm
Steven Leung says:
Brian – solid list.
Bob – I agree that there’s a lot of burdensome regulation on businesses, more so in our home state than in a lot of others. Not all regulation is unjust, but there’s a lot of jumping through hoops and fiefdoms.
We had a similar example here where a developer didn’t pay enough homage to the local city council during a redevelopment project and got stonewalled until the builders had to sell.
In the meantime, a new mixed-use development was built 10 miles away and ate their lunch before they could get started. That was half a decade ago and they’re just getting momentum back.
Oh, and being a Raiders and a Cubs fan, I hear you about the sports teams. Sorry about Jake Peavy but I hear Kerry Wood is a free agent…
November 17, 2008 — 1:49 am