My trusty spreadsheet, filled with state job figures released Friday, July 18, found 8.01 million people at work in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties in June. These figures are not adjusted for seasonal swings.

That’s up 71,300 workers in the year compared with 36,600 local jobs added in the previous year. It’s the most significant increase in 10 months, but it’s no wild hiring spree. Southern California bosses grew staff at a 101,400 annual pace since 2010.

Alternatively, consider staffing changes on a percentage basis. The past year’s 0.9% expansion was an improvement from the 0.5% increase the previous 12 months, but it’s below the 1.4% annual pace of the last 15 years.

A hiring revival?

Well, this job bump is somewhat surprising. Local businesses have expressed caution as they assess the unorthodox economic strategies of the Trump administration.

Also, note that most of the recent job gains are in industries tied to government spending. Such funding may decrease in the coming months: healthcare – up 41,200 in a year, social assistance – up 34,300, and government – up 19,600.

As for June itself, 4,400 jobs were trimmed across the region. June is typically a weak month for employment, as educators leave the job market for summer recess, outnumbering new staffing at tourism-related workplaces. Since 2010, June has generally seen only 400 workers added.

Joblessness

The four-county unemployment rate was 5.7% in June compared with 4.9% in the previous month, and 5.6% a year earlier. By the way, the median monthly local jobless rate is 5.8% since 2010.

There were 505,400 Southern Californians counted as officially out of work, up 65,100 in a month and up 10,700 in a year. The jobless count is 1% above the 500,100 median since 2010.

Regional differences

Here’s how the job market performed in the region’s key metropolitan areas in June …

Los Angeles County: 4.61 million workers, after adding 41,700 in 12 months vs. a 43,800 annual pace since 2010. For the month, there were 6,500 cuts, a decrease compared with the historical average of 1,700 cuts. Unemployment? 5.9% vs. 5.4% a month earlier, 6.7% a year ago and 6.1% median since 2010.

Orange County: 1.7 million workers, after adding 11,900 in 12 months, vs. 21,100 annual pace since 2010. For the month, there was a 2,200 increase compared with the historical 2,300 additions. Unemployment? 4.5% vs. 3.6% a month earlier, 4.4% a year ago and 4.3% median since 2010.

Inland Empire: 1.71 million workers, after adding 17,700 in 12 months, vs. a 36,500 annual pace since 2010. For the month, there was a 100 decrease compared with history’s 1,000 cuts. Unemployment? 5.9% vs. 4.8% a month earlier, 5.9% a year ago and 6.2% median since 2010.

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

This insight comes from my trusty spreadsheet’s analysis of rent inflation data from the Consumer Price Index, which tracks 23 U.S. markets, including three in Southern California. The CPI’s rent trends are based on tenant surveys tracking payments for various types of housing. Most industry metrics focus on asking prices for empty units in large apartment complexes.

Looking at the first half of 2025, the CPI shows rent inflation nationwide running at a 4% annual rate, down from a 5.6% increase in the first six months of 2024. That’s an improvement of 1.6 percentage points.

Yet, nowhere in Southern California did tenants experience the same or even a lower rent increase or see a more significant year-over-year improvement.

In San Diego County, renters experienced a 5.5% increase over the past year, the second-largest nationally. Yes, this was a decrease from a 6.2% rise in the first half of 2024. Yet San Diego’s rent-hike drop of 0.7 percentage points was only the eighth smallest among the 23 markets.

Inland Empire tenants saw a 4.9% increase, ranking it the seventh largest nationally. This represented a reduction from the 6% increase in the first half of 2024. But the decline of 1.1 percentage points was just the tenth smallest.

And in Los Angeles and Orange counties, renters experienced a 4.7% rent inflation. This rise, the eighth-highest among the 23 markets, matched the increase of the first half of 2024. L.A.-O.C.’s steady rent hikes made it the fifth-worst trend for tenants.

Southern California’s rent hikes remain elevated because the region has not seen the same construction boom as other parts of the country. Those newer apartments have helped cap rent increases.

Additionally, there were the wildfires in Los Angeles in January, which destroyed over 12,000 properties. This led to more local residents seeking rentals, while decreasing the available supply.

Nothing new

Sadly, painful rent increases are not a new issue, either locally or nationwide.

Since 2019, rent in the Inland Empire has risen 43%, the fourth-largest increase among the 23 U.S. markets. And San Diego’s 37% rent inflation ranked sixth.

L.A.-O.C.’s 26% six-year increase, ranking 17th, was the only local market below the national pace. U.S. rent inflation was 32% since 2019, according to CPI calculations.

Nationwide extremes

Rent inflation: St. Louis was No. 1 for the first half at 5.9%. Phoenix was best for renters, off 0.7%.

One-year change: Honolulu renters enjoyed the biggest improvement – a drop of 7.7 percentage points to 3.4%. New York had the biggest increase, up 0.8 points to 5.3%.

Six-year increase: Tampa is No. 1, up 54%. Smallest was San Francisco, up 15%.

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

Investors own more than half of all the houses in seven California counties.

That’s one eye-catching nugget from my trusty spreadsheet’s review of data on investor activity across the nation from BatchData, a small data tracker that digs deeper into property records than many traditional real estate analysts.

BatchData reviewed California ownership records to identify the state’s owner-occupied residences compared to houses controlled by investors. This study included properties that owners use for short-term or long-term rentals, second homes, and vacation retreats. It does not follow condos, build-to-rent single-family-home projects, or multi-unit properties.

California’s seven investor-dominated counties are lightly populated places, located in remote, northern slices of the state. It’s a good bet that many of these investments are second homes for their owners. These seven counties, best known for recreation and tourism, are …

Sierra: 82% of single-family houses are owned by investors, or 1,308 of 1,588 all houses.

Trinity: 77% – 4,243 of 5,542 houses.

Mono: 74% – 3,200 of 4,305 houses.

Alpine: 68% – 575 of 842 houses.

Plumas: 64% – 7,422 of 11,651 houses.

Modoc: 56% – 1,047 of 1,878 houses.

Calaveras: 54% – 10,385 of 19,209 houses.

That’s a sharp contrast to the statewide total, where investors own 1.45 million houses or just 19% of 7.6 million statewide.

Big county counts

To gain a better understanding of where house investors make their largest bets in California, consider the state’s 20 most populous counties, divided in half by their investor share ranking.

Start with the 10 counties with the highest investor ownership among the big 20 counties. It was topped by San Bernardino, with investors owning 27% of all houses. Then came Tulare (25%), Sonoma (23%), Fresno (22%), Stanislaus, Kern, and Santa Barbara (21%), San Joaquin (20%), Riverside (19%), and Sacramento (17%).

In these counties, primarily locales that are a modest distance from the state’s major job hubs, investors own 21% of the houses – that’s 524,863 of 2.46 million.

Compare that to the other half of the big 20, essentially the state’s urban core. In this grouping, San Mateo County had the largest investor share at 17%, followed by 16% in San Francisco, Santa Clara, Solano, San Diego, Contra Costa, and Orange counties, 15% in Los Angeles and Alameda counties, and 14% in Ventura County.

Combined, investors own 15%, or 624,294, of these 4 million houses.

By the way, in the state’s other 38 counties – including the seven aforementioned investor-dominated ones – investors collectively own 28%, or 301,578 of 1.1 million houses.

Income matters

Note a significant demographic difference between these three groups.

Investors tend to shy away from the big-city counties where the combined annual household incomes run $105,700.

Instead, investors focus on California’s more rural counties, with annual household incomes of $84,700, and the less urban big counties, at $84,400.

Just like house seekers looking for a place to call their own, financial competition may be a deciding factor in where investors choose to go.

Who’s the landlord?

Most of California’s single-family house investors are “mom and pop” types, according to BatchData.

Small-fry owners, with up to five properties nationwide, control 91% of California investment houses.

The rest is divvied up this way: Owners of six to 10 houses control 4% of California investment houses. Investors with 11 to 50 houses own 3% of this Golden State housing group. And 51 or more? Only 2% of investment houses.

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

These are the things you buy that, by Consumer Price Index definition, are expected to last for three or more years. You know, those “big-ticket items,” as economists say – from vehicles to furniture to appliances to electronics to recreational equipment.

June’s CPI suggests that recent discounts on these items may be coming to an end. Durable goods, which are 11% of the overall CPI math, rose at a 0.6% annual pace in June. Inflation for all goods and services was 2.7%.

Now, the pop in durable goods is meek inflation, yet it’s the first increase since November 2022.

Still, are durable goods a warning signal of inflation’s revival due to tariffs imposed on imported goods by the new administration?

Do not forget that U.S. shoppers, before the pandemic era, had long enjoyed discounted durable goods, thanks to the widespread acceptance of global trade. Americans seemed to love buying these cheaper goods, many of which were made in foreign factories.

A long fall

In the first 20 years of this century, the prices of durable goods, as measured by the CPI, fell on average by nearly 1% per year. The overall CPI increased by 2.1% annually in the same period.

That meant that $1,000 of durable goods in 2000 cost $830 in 2020, just as coronavirus would upend the global economy.

Business restrictions during the pandemic era shattered a long-established global supply chain that had moved inexpensive products around the world. Items that were once widely available in U.S. stores, such as furniture, appliances, and automobiles, were suddenly scarce.

Durable goods inflated by 21% in 2021 and 2022, according to the CPI. It was a key reason overall inflation surged 12% in those two years.

Normal conditions

The easing of coronavirus-related business restrictions eventually restored shipping normalcy, and durable goods prices in the U.S. were back in decline: down 1.3% in 2023 and 2.8% in 2024. Overall inflation chilled, too: up 3% in 2023 and up 2.6% last year.

Then came 2025, and a worldwide debate over trade practices was stirred by Donald Trump’s “America First” policies. And durable goods are inflating again, though at the moment just by a smidge.

Perhaps June’s modest price increase is a short-lived blip. Exporters, logistics firms and/or merchants could absorb most of the costs of new tariff policies – saving U.S. consumers from most of the hikes in trade costs.

However, if you’re looking for hints of where inflation may emerge due to all the trade frictions, June’s CPI provided one.

You may want to consider some big-ticket household expenditures sooner rather than later.

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

With lots of chatter about job insecurity zinging across California, what are the odds you’ll lose your job?

Now, trying to apply the crystal ball to statewide unemployment patterns is tricky enough. Calculating your chances of getting sacked is a very individual matter of math.

However, economic history shows us how frequently Californians lose their jobs. My trusty spreadsheet analyzed three employment metrics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that track missing paychecks over the past 20 years.

This math reveals only a few states have a more volatile job market than the Golden State.

Layoff math

The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey – better known as the “JOLTS” report – tracks the number of “layoffs and discharges” – or what you’d politely call involuntary departures.

Ponder these job cuts as a share of all workers over a year. Going back to 2005, an average year saw California bosses discharge 16% of their staff. That might seem high, but numerous industries have seasonal or temporary worker needs. It’s noteworthy that California’s layoff rate was No. 34 nationally and just below the median 17% among the states.

So, where in the U.S. are job losses most common? According to this math, Alaska was the highest with a 26% annual average, followed by Montana and Wyoming at 22%. Cuts were rarest in Washington, D.C., at 11%, followed by Minnesota and Virginia at 14%.

And California’s economic rivals? Texas ranked No. 40 at 15% job cuts annually, while Florida ranked No. 28 at 16%.

Out of work

The traditional unemployment rate provides a different window into who’s getting laid off.

These job-loss statistics track the number of individuals who report having no job compared with those who say they’re employed. However, this math includes workers who lost their jobs and were subsequently re-employed. So the cut count is muddled.

Notably, California’s unemployment rate averaged 7.1% over the last 20 years – the second-highest in the nation and significantly above the median rate of 5.7% among states.

The only state above California was Nevada at 7.5%. The lowest unemployment rates were in North Dakota, at 3%, South Dakota, at 3.2%, and Nebraska, at 3.3%. Texas ranked No. 29 at 5.4%, and Florida ranked No. 23 at 5.8%.

“Real” unemployment

Another much less discussed employment yardstick combines joblessness and those poorly served by the job market.

Consider underemployed workers and those who are discouraged by hiring conditions. Add those to the unemployment rate, and you get another view of who’s missing a solid paycheck.

Again, California fares poorly with this broad measure of joblessness, which some call the “real” unemployment rate.

The statewide average ran 13.35% over the past 20 years. That’s No. 2 among the states and well above the national median of 10%.

Nevada repeated as No. 1 at 13.38%. Lows were North Dakota at 5.8%, South Dakota at 6.5%, and Nebraska at 6.7%.

Rivals? Texas ranked No. 30 at 9.8%, and Florida, ranked No. 14, had a rate of 10.9%.

Bottom line

There’s an economist’s joke about layoffs: “It’s a recession if your neighbor’s laid off, it’s a depression if you lose your job.”

These statistical differences highlight another perspective gap – the difference between being let go and being out of work for any extended period.

To combine these risks, the 20-year average of the trio of job-loss metrics was tabulated into the “Sack Score” to approximate a worker’s chances of missing paychecks during a year.

That calculation shows the odds of a Californian getting sacked in a typical year are 12.1% – the sixth-highest Sack Score in the nation and above the 11% U.S. median.

The Sack Score was highest in Alaska at 14.7%, followed by Nevada at 13.8% and Michigan at 12.5%. It was lowest in Nebraska at 8.3%, and in South Dakota and Iowa at 8.8%. Texas? No. 35 at 10.2%. Florida? No. 25 at 11%.

But what about the worst-case scenario? In the past two decades, workers have received harsh reminders of limited job security twice: during the Great Recession and the pandemic era.

Using my Sack Score, California workers’ worst year was 2020, when 19.2% of workers lost their employment amid coronavirus lockdowns. That was the seventh-ugliest maximum among the states.

And California’s second-worst year for sackings was 18.1% in 2009, as the bursting real estate bubble crushed the economy.

Sack Scores show the nation’s worst was 2020 at 16.2%. The same year, Nevada hit 30.3%, the worst result among the states over the two decades.

Postscript

So, is recent job skittishness justified?

Well, 2024’s Sack Score for California was 9.1% vs. the 20-year average of 12.1%. And nationally, sackings were 8.1% of all jobs last year vs. the typical 11%

That’s a very decent employment market vs the historical norm.

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

President Donald Trump’s flagship legislation, signed into law on July 4, will, among other things, quadruple the deductibility of state and local taxes — commonly known as “SALT” taxes — up to $40,000 per year for many taxpayers. That reverses a $10,000 cap established eight years ago during Trump’s first term in office.

This change will make property taxes a much more likely deduction for a substantial number of California homeowners and potential buyers.

So what could be amiss with such government generosity?

Well, it translates to another housing subsidy that further props up ridiculously high sale prices and further complicates a badly wounded real estate market. You see, various ownership incentives, promoted by both political parties over the decades at the local, state and federal levels, have made the housing market overly dependent on such subsidies.

These incentives range from the deductibility of mortgage interest to tax breaks on home sale profits to government cash infusions for down payments or other financial needs of home seekers. And don’t forget the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of the mortgage rate landscape.

Yes, “supporting” homeownership is a noble cause. Yes, these subsidies are typically offered with the best intentions. Consider the politically well-connected real estate groups that push them, too.

Still, sadly, tossing more money at the housing market only benefits the few who qualify – and makes house hunting a futile chase for the masses.

Consider that 65% of Americans owned their homes in 2025’s first quarter. That’s the smallest share since the end of 2019, just before coronavirus pandemic upended the economy.

After all that pandemic-era homebuying madness, including historically low mortgage rates, the ownership needle is stuck in neutral.

Too much good stuff

You see, the housing market is excessively stimulated. Take the rise in SALT tax deductibility.

It effectively gives house seekers greater financial capability to purchase a home because their property tax expense, post deduction, will be reduced. It’s much like how the ability to write off mortgage interest — within prescribed limits — gives borrowers enhanced purchasing power. Same for down-payment assistance programs.

And don’t get me started on how the Fed’s ill-fated pandemic-era slashing of mortgage rates – which included buying $1 trillion of mortgage bonds – distorted the housing market.

All of it creates more money chasing a limited stock of homes. And the true winners are home sellers who get premium, government-juiced pricing.

Equally troubling are “Bill Beautiful Bill” provisions that turbocharge tax breaks for real estate investors. This will create more competition for house hunters seeking a place of their own.

If the nation were genuinely committed to home ownership, perhaps it’s time for different tactics.

Falling prices

Simply put, affordable housing means lower prices.

Incomes can’t grow fast enough to keep up with home prices. The “Big Beautiful Bill” should boost take-home pay for many Americans. Yet the biggest beneficiaries are probably wealthier folks who already are owners.

Even a massive construction push, often touted as a cure for affordability, only works if housing creation is significant enough to cut home prices. And don’t expect developers to overbuild willingly.

So, envision a scenario where incentives were harshly eliminated. We’re living through one today, namely the Fed’s change of heart.

The central bank’s actions since 2022 have more than doubled mortgage rates from the all-time lows created by its previous policies.

The rush to buy ended as few can afford today’s inflated house payments. The decreased demand is slowly eroding home appreciation as signs of depreciation pop up across the country.

If mortgages remain expensive, prices will likely tumble. That’s what fewer subsidies can do.

Of course, my anti-incentive plan has one wrinkle. It creates an economic loser: current property owners who would see their values drop.

And nobody gets elected – or re-elected – running on a “let’s slash home prices” platform.

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

How much will California home sellers cut their prices as competition grows?

My trusty spreadsheet analyzed Realtor.com statistics on the number of existing houses and condos on the market and their asking prices. The average results for the three months ending in May were compared with two years earlier – a time when the pandemic homebuying frenzy was cooling – and with 2019, just before coronavirus upended the real estate scene.

The top line is that California list prices are down 1% this spring compared with two years ago following a 50% increase in active listings from 2023.

We know that affordability challenges have deterred numerous house hunters, as prices and mortgage rates remain stubbornly high. But at least as summer starts in 2025, the folks who dare shop for housing have far more options.

And pricing habits of California homeowners suggest that new inventory is being noticed.

Cost pressures

Is the uptick in homes for sale some dramatic exit strategy by owners?

Historically speaking, California’s supply of residences for sale has yet to surpass 2019 levels. California listings remain 13% below what’s seen as “normal” times of six years ago.

And nationally, California’s two-year inventory jump ranked only No. 30 among the states. Florida’s 125% increase was No. 1.

California bargains still seem impossible to find. California’s $764,000 listing price for the three months ending in May was the third-highest asking price in the nation, behind Massachusetts at $805,900 and Hawaii at $776,700.

Still, the 1% dip in asking price since the spring of 2023 is a sharp contrast to the previous four years.

California’s was one of 21 states with price cuts during the past two years. Hawaii’s 9% drop was the largest, followed by Iowa, down 8%, and Florida, down 7%.

Let’s not forget the pandemic era’s demand for larger living spaces, plus historically cheap mortgages fueled by the Federal Reserve.

The result was a 33% surge in California asking prices between 2019 and 2023. The only good news is that 39 states had bigger increases.

Bad mix

Elevated prices have persisted despite the Fed’s reversal from low-rate policies – a move aimed at cooling an overheated economy with the worst inflation in four decades.

Ponder the 30-year mortgage rate at 6.8% in May 2025. It’s gone from 4.1% in May 2019 to an all-time low of 2.7% at the end of 2020 to 6.4% two years ago.

Housing affordability plummeted. Consider one estimate of a California buyer’s house payments, which shows that the monthly financial burden has tripled in 10 years.

No matter the math, it’s too much for California house hunters.

California homebuying in the past year ran 27% slower than its 20-year average pace dating to 2005, according to data from Attom. Nationally, sales are 11% below normal.

So the grand question: Will California home sellers in mid-2025 have to significantly lower prices further if they want to cinch a deal?

Or will potential drops in mortgage rates – not guaranteed despite pressure on the Fed to cut the rates they control – get house hunters in a buying mood?

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

Irvine is Southern California’s top spot for renters and San Bernardino the worst, according to a national ranking of places to be a tenant.

My trusty spreadsheet reviewed a recent rentability scorecard from WalletHub, which graded 182 large U.S. cities – including 20 in Southern California – on their desirability for renters.

The grades were based on two components. What I’ll call “affordability” – 13 benchmarks tracking everything from the price of rents vs. incomes to the tenant-friendliness of local laws. And there’s “livability” – a combination of eight yardsticks of regional quality of life, from schools to safety to weather. Those grades were combined into a national ranking.

Consider Irvine’s No. 1 grade for Southern California.

It was driven by the city scoring second-best for the region’s affordability. Keep in mind, that’s essentially a comparison of citywide high rents to fat local paychecks. Plus, Irvine ranked No. 3 for local livability. And on the national scale, Irvine ranked No. 26 among the 180 U.S. cities.

No. 2 was Huntington Beach, with the fourth-best regional affordability and the No. 1 grade for Southern California livability. Nationally, it was No. 35.

And the region’s third-best city for renters was San Diego – No. 7 in affordability, No. 5 in livability, and No. 63 nationally.

By the way, the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park was scored the best U.S. spot for renters.

Low scores

At the other end of the rentability spectrum, San Bernardino scored the region’s lowest grade for tenants.

That was based on its No. 18 grade for local affordability and No. 20 rank for livability. Nationally, it ranked No. 174. Only eight ranked lower, with Memphis scoring as the nation’s worst place to rent.

The next lowest locally was Moreno Valley, scoring No. 20 for local affordability, No. 13 in Southern California livability, and No. 165 nationally.

No. 18 regionally was Ontario – No. 19 in affordability, No. 10 in livability, and No. 156 nationally.

Same old story

That national scale tells a familiar story about Southern California living. A solid place to live, if you can afford it.

Contemplate that the 20 local cities had an average No. 51 U.S. ranking for livability. That’s significantly better than the typical No. 97 grade for 153 cities tracked that are located outside of California.

However, there’s a price to pay. Southern California’s average affordability rank was a lowly No. 154 compared with No. 82 for renting outside of the Golden State.

That’s why, on this U.S. scale, Southern California averaged an overall No. 112 rank for rentability vs. No. 88 elsewhere.

Other local grades

Here is how the rest of Southern California was graded by WalletHub, in order of desirability – high to low …

No. 4 Garden Grove: No. 10 for regional affordability, No. 2 for livability, and No. 68 on the national scorecard of 182 cities.

No. 5 Santa Clarita: No. 11 affordability, No. 4 livability, and No. 79 nationally.

No. 6 Fontana: No. 5 affordability, No. 8 livability, and No. 80 nationally.

No. 7 Oxnard: No. 3 affordability, No. 17 livability, and No. 100 nationally.

No. 8 Rancho Cucamonga: No. 15 affordability, No. 6 livability, and No. 103 nationally.

No. 9 Bakersfield: No. 1 affordability, No. 19 livability, and No. 109 nationally.

No. 10 Chula Vista: No. 8 affordability, No. 12 livability, and No. 124 nationally.

No. 11 Anaheim: No. 6 affordability, No. 15 livability, and No. 125 nationally.

No. 12 Long Beach: No. 13 affordability, No. 11 livability, and No. 129 nationally.

No. 13 Santa Ana: No. 9 affordability, No. 14 livability, and No. 132 nationally.

No. 14 Glendale: No. 17 affordability, No. 7 livability, and No. 137 nationally.

No. 15 Los Angeles: No. 14 affordability, No. 16 livability, and No. 141 nationally.

No. 16 Oceanside: No. 16 affordability, No. 9 livability, and No. 148 nationally.

No. 17 Riverside: No. 12 affordability, No. 18 livability, and No. 152 nationally.

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

The odds of finding a deal on a used car in Southern California have slimmed dramatically in the last six years.

My trusty spreadsheet reviewed a study by iSeeCars that examined the sale prices of 3-year-old used cars in 50 U.S. markets and the nation overall. The car listing service compared sales patterns from the first six months of 2025 with the same period in 2019. The report considered bargains to be any vehicle selling for less than $20,000.

Across Southern California, these cheaper used cars accounted for just 13% of sales this year compared with 53% six years earlier, the study shows. That represents a 76% drop in the bargain cars’ market share.

Why? Prices of all 3-year-old used cars in Southern California have surged by $10,000 since 2019, reaching $33,200 – a 43% increase.

“This loss of new car production during the pandemic between 2020 and 2022 set up today’s used car market scarcity,” said Karl Brauer, iSeeCars’s executive analyst. “With prices substantially higher on popular high-volume models, used car shoppers are being forced to buy older models with more miles to stay within their budget.”

Budget buster

Let’s not forget that today’s car buyers also face pricier auto loan rates.

Ponder a 2025 buyer financing the typical $33,200 purchase of a 3-year-old used car at the current 7.4% rate, according to Statista. That would cost $660 a month, and over five years, assuming no down payment. So, a buyer would spend $39,600 for the vehicles plus interest.

Six years earlier, the same benchmark vehicle – with just a $23,200 price tag – at 2019’s 4.6% interest rates would cost a driver $430 a month or $25,800 over five years.

That’s a 53% bigger hit to the household budget.

For comparison, local wages have increased 32% since 2019, according to one yardstick of what is paid in Southern California’s private industries.

No local oddity

The only good news for local bargain hunters is that the evaporation of low-priced used cars isn’t just a Southern California quirk.

Nationwide, sub-$20,000 used cars accounted for just 11.5% of U.S. sales in 2025, compared with 49% six years earlier. That’s a 77% drop. American car shoppers have seen used-car prices increase by $9,400, or 41%, to $32,600 since 2019.

Plus, ponder the 50 U.S. markets tracked in this study. There were 33 that experienced a larger decline in the share of used cars sold at a bargain price than Southern California.

The largest drop was found in Boston, where the bargain car’s share of sales tumbled to 7% this year from 45% in 2019, or an 86% decline. Next was Minneapolis (7% from 45%, or an 85% decline) and Hartford, Connecticut (9% from 52% or an 83% decline).

The best spots for used-car shoppers, relatively speaking, were Miami (21% of the market under $20,000 from 55% six years ago, or a 62% decline), Las Vegas (17% from 54%, or a 69% decline), and Orlando (18% from 55%, or a 66% decline).

Not so golden

Or look at the car shopper’s headache elsewhere in California.

Sacramento: 12% of sales in 2025 vs. 51% in 2019, a 77% drop in share, the 26th largest drop among the 50 U.S. markets tracked.

San Francisco: 13% of sales vs. 45% in 2019, a 72% drop in share, No. 41.

San Diego: 14% of sales vs. 53% in 2019, a 74% drop in share, No. 39.

Fresno: 17% of sales vs. 57% in 2019, a 71% drop in share, No. 43.

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

What’s next for interest rates is a heated, national debate.

The Federal Reserve is taking a cautious approach to further cuts in the rates it controls, fearing ongoing trade wars could reignite problematic inflation. Fed critics, most notably President Donald Trump, think rates are too high and the Fed should be aggressively cutting.

Political theater aside, what might lower rates mean for California’s housing market? And remember, Fed cuts don’t always lower what mortgage borrowers pay.

Let me remind you, and not for the first time, that a historical perspective suggests that cheaper money is not a perfect cure. You see, bargain financing has a bad habit of arriving when the economy is in disarray.

To see what’s up – or down – with the market, my trusty spreadsheet looked at statewide homebuying data from the California Association of Realtors, the average 30-year mortgage rate from Freddie Mac, and government job statistics.

These economic indicators were divided into three groups dating back to 1990 to gives us a view into how homebuying performed in 12-month periods – when rates fell the most vs. when financing costs increased significantly.

During these 36 years, rates averaged a drop to 5.5% from 6.5% in their gaudiest declines. Within the largest significant rate increases, mortgages averaged a jump to 6.2% from 5.2%.

Rate changes

When rates drop, house hunters get busy.

The number of single-family homes sold averaged a 5% one-year gain during the biggest rate cuts since 1990. However, sales decreased by an average of 6% when rates rose sharply.

But there’s a catch: Sales declined in 34% of these 12-month periods when rates tumbled.

And look out for cooler appreciation.

The statewide median home price rose an average of 4% in the years when rates tumbled since 1990, but it increased at a 7% annual pace when rates jumped.

Plus, prices dipped 20% of the time when rates fell sharply.

Cheaper money can also alter the number of options house hunters have to choose from.

Inventory, as measured by days on market, fell by an average of 11% when rates tumbled in 36 years, but rose 12% with rate jumps. Elevated buying may have gobbled up supply.

And buyers’ timing can change.

Days on market sped up by four days on average with declining rates since 1990, but selling times increased by four days when rates jumped.

Affordability matters. Estimated house payments fell 5% on average with declining rates but increased by 18% when rates rose.

Tricky juggle

Do not forget real estate’s three keys: “Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.”

When mortgage rates took their deepest dives during the past 36 years, the number of California workers fell by 0.4% on average, as California unemployment rose to 8.2% from 6.8%.

Buying a California home requires a solid paycheck.

Consider how employers statewide hired when rates soared since 1990. Jobs grew at a rate of 2.4% annually, as unemployment dropped to 5.8% from 6.5%. Those extra paychecks create potential house buyers.

So it’s a tricky juggle between real estate’s thirst for cheaper money and its need for a healthy job market.

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