By Dan Walters, CalMatters
California’s population exploded during and immediately after World War II, from 6.9 million in 1940 to 19.9 million in 1970, thanks to waves of migrants from other states drawn to California’s surging economy and the famous postwar baby boom.
California absorbed its 13 million new residents by expanding its public infrastructure of schools, colleges, highways, parks and water systems and by welcoming immense private investment in new housing, new retail complexes, new factories and new office buildings.
Population growth slowed in the 1970s in the aftermath of the baby boom and as an economic evolution, from manufacturing to technology and services, changed the job market. The leading politician of the decade, Gov. Jerry Brown, declared that California had entered “an era of limits” and major infrastructure expansion was no longer needed.
However, the 1980s saw a new population surge, driven by immigration from other countries and a new baby boom. California’s population jumped by 6 million — 5-plus million of them babies — during the decade, a more than 25% gain.
The increase was so large, relative to the nation as a whole, that California was awarded seven new congressional seats after the 1990 census.
Unlike California’s expansive reaction to its postwar population increase, the 1980s boomlet sparked an adverse reaction in the 1990s, including new laws aimed at denying public services to undocumented immigrants and a power struggle within the Sierra Club over immigration’s impact on the environment.
Meanwhile, population growth slowed again, and in this decade virtually halted as immigration and birth rates declined and substantial numbers of people left California, thanks largely to the state’s sky-high living costs.
A recent study by researchers Hans Johnson, Julien LaFortune and Eric McGhee at the Public Policy Institute of California found that the total fertility rate has dropped from 2.21 children per woman in 2007 to 1.48 in 2023, far below what demographers call the “replacement level of 2.1 necessary to keep a population from declining.”
The state lost a congressional seat after the 2020 census and is likely to lose several more after the 2030 census. However, the impacts of California’s population plateau extend far beyond politics.
“A smaller population can offer benefits; it reduces pressure on housing and infrastructure needs,” the researchers wrote, “easing congestion and reducing the need for expansive public works projects.” They also cited potential improvements in the environment and increasing per pupil spending on education as enrollment declines.
“At the same time,” they added, “fewer births — and a smaller population — may bring challenges: they could accelerate K–12 enrollment declines and strain the state’s economic and safety net systems as fewer workers support a larger share of older Californians. Labor shortages could also hinder California’s economic development.”
Those are all valid points and many more potential impacts could be mentioned. But the underlying issue is whether political policies will reflect the new demographic reality.
The post-World War II population explosion manifested itself in a bipartisan effort to do what was needed to make the transition relatively painless. We haven’t seen such political adjustment to changing demographic trends since.
Meanwhile, the state’s population is twice what it was in 1970 and we still depend on what politicians wrought in the post-war era — such things as the State Water Plan and our extensive freeway network.
A stagnant population eases pressure for new infrastructure but we still need to maintain what we have and expand it to meet current needs. However, water projects have languished and we no longer build new highways.
Jerry Brown, who proclaimed the “era of limits” in the 1970s, returned to the governorship in 2011 and declared, “I want to get shit done.”
There’s still much that should be done.
The clutching gasps of those worried about declining population are evidence of how coopted we have become with the corporate economic model. It wants more consumers and more workers so that it can sell more stuff. Most of the stuff that is sold is not needed or at best redundant. That stuff is destroying our environment in accessing it, transporting it, manufacturing it and dumping it into landfills or oceans or the air. There is no reason we cannot enjoy a declining population that reaches stability in the near term and allows us all to share equitably while preserving earth for the people to come. This would mean, of course, fewer trillionaires but some sacrifices would have to be made.
If you research the motivations behind the recent US open border policy, you will find that Wall Street and the big banks were advocating for it. The rationale was that it was the only way we could maintain an ever-increasing GDP and thereby keep the asset prices from ultimately collapsing. It is a highly leveraged pyramid and is based on the assumption of infinite economic growth which is ultimately impossible. The only other alternative seems to be to rapidly inflate away the value of the dollar.
Let’s see this alleged research.
We haven’t had an open border in, what, seventy or eighty years? Thereabouts? You should come up with a different imaginary reason for the problems.
Aside from the fact that there’s no such thing as an open border, you’re right.
Complicated now by AI. They can reduce the need for labor but still have to find customers and bots don’t buy much.
Hopefully some of that is from MAGAcans moving to places like Idaho and Arkansas so they can be happy little clams, or happy like pigs in slop.
Wish I could upvote you! It sure would make me a happier little clam.
Easily achieved, if you stop freeloading.
Says the Anonymous freeloader to the other lesser anonymous freeloader.
Says someone who doesn’t know how this site works.
Nice try, can’t blame this on the right when the left owns CA.. Everyone knows why people are fleeing.
Over taxation, too high of cost of living driven by liberal politics. It is well documented.
It’s sad when faced by facts folks lie and result to name calling.
You can start your insults now. . . . but you know I am right.
KAPO – GT said your MAGAt buddies are leaving CA, he/she is not blaming them for anything. And yes, as ALL know why they’re leaving – so they can be surrounded by their own kind. That’s great, we all wish more of you would leave.
No one is disputing this. Can you please try to read comments before replying?
No your are wrong. People are leaving due to the high price of living here due to . . .. taxation.
Please read the comments yourself.
“People are leaving California primarily to escape the severe cost of living and soaring housing prices”
Are you unable to fathom why costs are so high? You are supposed to be educated, yet somehow you avoid the truth here?
Those soaring costs are the result of the current national administrations insane policies.
But, having been thoroughly brainwashed without prior preshrinking treatment, you can’t figure it out.
KAPO – I’m not wrong about anything. MAGAts are leaving CA because they don’t like the liberal policies, which includes higher taxation. That is exactly what I said and it is a stone cold fact. I also never said other people weren’t leaving due to high costs. Again…. NOTHING I said was wrong.
Just because you can’t understand my comment, doesn’t mean I’m wrong. It just means you can’t understand elementary level English comprehension.
Again, GT (nor ANYONE here) is blaming “the right” for anything. YOU. FAILED. Again….
Stop embarrassing yourself.
“Are you unable to fathom why costs are so high? ” Tariffs? Straight of Hormuz? Inflation driven by nincompoop Republican policies? Frozen job market? Windmills?
“High taxation, soaring housing prices, and some of the highest gas prices in the nation have contributed to notable domestic out-migration, particularly for lower-income residents moving to more affordable states” I don’t see where it says who is leaving, they are just leaving.
Again, you blame the feds for Newsom’s failure, and will never admit he is not doing a good job.
Thanks for the insults,
“Resorting to insults is a clear indicator that the other person has run out of logical, fact-based points. In argumentation and philosophy, this is known as an ad hominem fallacy—attacking the person rather than the argument.”
Own it.
KAPO – “I don’t see where it says who is leaving,”
That’s because you asked Google AI why people are leaving California, not who is leaving. That’s not proof of anything other than what we all already know – some people, even Democrats, are leaving CA because of the high cost of living in the most beautiful and desirable state in the union. No one ever said this wasn’t true.
In fact, YOU said I was “wrong” about MAGAts leaving because they want to live somewhere with other MAGAts in places that align with their selfish views. That is 100% true and you refuse to address it.
If you want to talk about logical fallacies, look up what you’re doing here. It’s called the Motte and Bailey fallacy.
Kapedo is so low information they them can’t even use AI to make a decent argument. Go back to the kiddie table .
That is NOT what an ad hominem fallacy is. Here’s an actual ad hominem fallacy: “X is wrong because X uses insults.”
Kaponathan, show me where I blame anyone?
Take some admission for the fact the current administration in CA. is failing.
It cannot be avoided, and yet you want to point the finger elsewhere.
You and sac simply will not admit they are doing a poor job – and taxpayers pay the price.
childish.
Kaponothan, Take some admission for the fact the current Trump regime is failing.
Kaposer, how is your leg and your parrot?
LOL you sure?
KAPOSER – CA is the 4th largest economy in the world. In fact, we went from 5th to 4th during Newsom’s leadership. That is not “failing.”
You are the last person here to call anyone “childish.”
O love how he grew up in Granite Bay and lives in Ojai and wants to pretend California is miserable. Low IQ con drivel
Governments at every level—federal, state, and local—rely on continuous population growth to fund the skyrocketing costs of Social Security and public pensions. Meanwhile, the private sector faces real accountability; regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley force corporations to balance their books and accurately report liabilities every single year. When will we demand that same standard from our governments? Hopefully, before the house of cards explodes.
More con drivel. In reality, it is the capitalistic consumer society that demands continuous growth, leading to eventual unsustainability.
In the year 2001, CalPERS had a healthy safety margin: 2 active working taxpayers contributing into the fund for every 1 retiree drawing benefits. Today, that ratio has collapsed to roughly 1.3 active workers per retiree
For some public safety positions (like Highway Patrol, police, and firefighters), cities and the state must now pitch in an extra 50% to 70% of the employee’s salary just to cover pension obligations.
For regular school and city employees, the contribution rate sits at roughly 26% to 31% of payroll.
The system won’t “explode” in a single day, but during the next major stock market correction, California will face a severe reckoning. With a shrinking population and fewer young workers to shoulder the load, the state will be forced to make a painful choice: drastically raise taxes on a shrinking base, or severely cut funding for roads, schools, and social programs to keep the pension promises alive.
Yep. The pension system needed to end a decade or so ago. It’s a slow-motion disaster at this point. CA is fouling up and apparently incapable thus far of reform.
This is largely the result of the economic impacts of republican deficit spending and anti-tax insanity, so I guess you’re somewhat correct that it’s the fault of government.
The root of California’s modern pension crisis can be traced back to Senate Bill 400 (SB 400) in 1999, passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by Democratic Governor Gray Davis.
During the dot-com boom, when pension funds looked artificially flush, SB 400 dramatically increased pension benefits for state employees and allowed retroactivity.
CalPERS wrongly projected that these increases wouldn’t cost taxpayers an extra dime, assuming the stock market would grow indefinitely. When the market corrected, taxpayers were left on the hook for those expanded, unsustainable promises.
Blaming federal Republican policies for California’s state-level pension crisis ignores the reality that California has had the tax revenue and the absolute political power to fix this for over a decade. The underfunding is a direct result of local legislative decisions made right in Sacramento.
The underfunding is a direct result of nationwide economic woes precipitated by republican economic perversity.
Attributing California’s pension crisis to Republican anti-tax policies is logically inconsistent. The state’s government is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, and its residents already face one of the highest per capita state tax burdens in the United States.
Were you expecting the Feds to bail out CA pensions?
It was the con feds and the likes of Reagan that messed up the economy, by promoting their anti-tax propaganda, and pushed their stagnation of wages and income gap policies.
it’s bad mathematical modeling by CalPERS and CalSTRS administrators. For decades, these pension boards intentionally used overly optimistic, inflated investment return assumptions (7.5% to 8%) to hide how underfunded they actually were. This allowed politicians to keep promising massive benefits without forcing the state or local municipalities to actually fund them appropriately. When the tech bubble burst and the 2008 recession hit, the math caught up with them.
Nope. Nobody has a crystal ball.
Republicans constantly crashing healthy economies left to them by democrats are to blame,
starving state local governments of revenue.