I’m confused.
Both UCLA’s Anderson Forecast and USC’s School of Policy Planning and Development agree that Housing is in trouble. The demographic justifications are diametrically opposed. UCLA says the population is “skewing younger” and USC says the population is aging.
How can California’s population be “skewing younger” in today’s LA Times Business Section about the UCLA Anderson Forecast while the median age increased from 33.3 years in 2000 to 34.8 in 2010 in California according to the US Census?
UCLA foresees a geographic population shift to the coast to apartments and abandonment of single family housing in the inland, perhaps based on youth’s affinity to urban amenities and proximity to employment.
In the same LA Times about a week earlier I read that USC foresees a tough market for a large supply of baby boomer sellers to a smaller populations of younger buyers who can’t afford what the baby boomers are selling irregardless of housing type or location, location, location.
Some fact checkers at the LA Times may have been let go in the latest round of “streamlining” the organization…or perhaps, at UCLA Anderson Forecast.
Pini Herman serves as President of the Movable Minyan a lay-lead independent congregation in the 3rd Street area.
