Leading, Slipping, Gaining, Lagging Analysis:
Assessing Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Employment Growth
Across California Counties
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Employment Growth
County vs Statewide Average: 2008-2017 and 2017
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Employment Growth
California:
2008-2017 = 1.00%
2017 = 2.68%
Borrowing from an approach that sometimes appears in the finance sections of the popular press, LSGL analysis is a handy and versatile way to compare, portray and classify the patterns of real estate and rental and leasing employment growth across all of California's 58 counties. In finance, this technique is used for comparing and assessing the market performance of individual securities or across industry sectors. For example, the performance of the 30 stocks contained within Dow are compared with one another over the past week in contrast to their performance over the past month using the Dow's respective averages as the points of reference.
Here in this California Regional Economic Analysis Project report, we adopt this approach to gauge and compare the real estate and rental and leasing employment growth of California's 58 counties over the latest available year (2017) against the backdrop of their growth over the long term period (2008-2017). In so doing we classify their growth and performance into 4 broad categories: Leading, Slipping, Gaining and Lagging.
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Employment Growth
County vs Statewide Average: 2008-2017 and 2017
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Employment Growth
California:
2008-2017 = 1.00%
2017 = 2.68%
This figure displays the 58 counties of California as dots on a scattergram, with the vertical axis representing the average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate over the long-term period (2008-2017), and the horizontal axis representing the real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate for the near-term (2017).
This figure sets apart those counties whose long-term real estate and rental and leasing employment growth exceeded the statewide average of 1.00%, by portraying them in the top two quadrants demarcated at 1.00% on the vertical axis. County whose long-term average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate trailed the statewide average (1.00%) are distributed in the bottom two quadrants. In all, 8 counties surpassed the statewide average over 2008-2017, while 46 counties fell below.
Similarly, the two quadrants on the right of this figure present the positions of the 23 counties whose most recent (2017) real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate exceeded the statewide average (2.68%). The two quadrants on the left feature those 31 counties whose real estate and rental and leasing employment growth over 2017 trailed the statewide average.
Accordingly, each quadrant portrays the performance of all 58 counties corresponding with their long-term (2008-2017) and near-term (2017) performance relative to their respective statewide averages of 1.00% over 2008-2017 and 2.68% over 2017:
Leading counties () (top-right quadrant)...are counties whose average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate surpassed the statewide average both long-term (1.00%) and near-term (2.68%).
Slipping counties () (top-left quadrant)...are counties whose long-term average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate exceeded the statewide average (1.00%), but whose near-term growth has "slipped" by falling below the California average (2.68%).
Gaining counties () (bottom-right quadrant)...are counties whose long-term average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate fell below the statewide average (1.00%), but whose near-term growth has "gained" by registering above the average (2.68%) statewide.
Lagging counties () (bottom-left quadrant)...are counties whose average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate fell under the statewide average both long-term (1.00%) and near-term (2.68%).
   
 
Summary of California's 58 County Totals
 
Short Term Average
 
 
Below
(2.68%)
Above
(2.68%)
 
Long
Term
Average
Above
(1.00%)
3
5
8
Below
(1.00%)
28
18
46
 
31
23
54
 
   
Leading Counties
2017 vs. 2008-2017 Averages
Leading Counties
California:
2008-2017 = 1.00%
2017 = 2.68%
Turning attention to the top-right quadrant from the discussion above, this figure features the distribution of the California counties classified as Leading. These counties surpassed California's average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth both long-term (2008-2017 = 1.00%) as well as near-term (2017 = 2.68%). Each is identified by its corresponding ranking based on it's average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate over 2008-2017.
Of California's 58 counties, just 5 (9%) are classified within the Leading () category. Those counties ranked by their long-term average include:
Slipping Counties
2017 vs. 2008-2017 Averages
Slipping Counties
California:
2008-2017 = 1.00%
2017 = 2.68%
This figure depicts the distribution of the 3 California counties classified as Slipping (top-left quadrant), in that their long-term average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate outpaced the average statewide (2008-2017 = 1.00%), while they trailed the statewide average near-term (2017 = 2.68%). Again, each county is identified by it's corresponding ranking based on its average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate over 2008-2017.
Only 3 (5%) of California's 58 counties are classified as Slipping (). Those counties ranked by their long-term average include:
Gaining Counties
2017 vs. 2008-2017 Averages
Gaining Counties
California:
2008-2017 = 1.00%
2017 = 2.68%
This figure shows the distribution of the 18 California counties classified as Gaining (bottom-right quadrant), in that their long-term average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate posted below the average statewide (2008-2017 = 1.00%), while they outpaced California's average near-term (2017 = 2.68%). Again, each county is identified by its corresponding ranking based on its average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate over 2008-2017.
Of California's 58 counties, 31% (18) are featured as Gaining (). Those counties ranked by their long-term average include:
Lagging Counties
2017 vs. 2008-2017 Averages
Lagging Counties
California:
2008-2017 = 1.00%
2017 = 2.68%
This figure depicts the distributions of the 28 California counties classified as Lagging (bottom-left quadrant). These counties trailed the statewide average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth both long-term (2008-2017 = 1.00%) as well as near-term (2017 = 2.68%). Again, each county is identified by its corresponding ranking based on it's average annual real estate and rental and leasing employment growth rate over 2008-2017.
48% of California's counties, 28 of 58, are characterized here as Lagging (). Those counties ranked by their long-term average include:
   
 
California
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Employment Growth
County vs. Statewide Average
 
2008-2017
 
2017
 
 
Leading Counties
 
8
1.03
 
21
2.82
17,418
 
6
1.05
 
18
2.89
320
 
3
1.31
 
13
3.09
1,401
 
2
2.06
 
20
2.83
368,077
 
1
2.22
 
5
3.84
43,736
Slipping Counties
 
5
1.17
 
35
2.20
149,310
 
7
1.05
 
43
1.56
29,278
 
4
1.19
 
50
0.99
14,567
Gaining Counties
 
44
-0.77
 
10
3.26
729
 
21
0.54
 
16
2.96
34,434
 
32
0.04
 
8
3.35
6,024
 
26
0.28
 
6
3.82
2,693
 
54
-2.99
 
19
2.84
942
 
38
-0.22
 
1
5.98
815
 
35
-0.05
 
17
2.94
9,171
 
9
1.00
 
3
4.02
16,239
 
53
-2.43
 
4
3.99
417
 
29
0.18
 
15
2.99
49,660
 
37
-0.15
 
12
3.19
34,048
 
39
-0.31
 
7
3.68
12,972
 
20
0.58
 
23
2.68
9,658
 
31
0.09
 
9
3.30
59,134
 
42
-0.67
 
11
3.20
3,488
 
47
-1.24
 
14
3.02
7,106
 
11
0.93
 
2
4.83
14,987
 
27
0.24
 
22
2.77
1,926
Lagging Counties
 
23
0.36
 
27
2.50
40,635
 
33
0.01
 
37
2.10
4,612
 
52
-2.40
 
26
2.51
1,022
 
12
0.90
 
44
1.54
329
 
45
-0.82
 
45
1.53
331
 
46
-1.10
 
48
1.26
242
 
25
0.28
 
54
-1.51
1,889
 
22
0.53
 
39
1.80
12,807
 
49
-1.93
 
46
1.53
265
 
48
-1.26
 
53
-1.13
1,917
 
10
0.99
 
42
1.60
14,683
 
50
-2.03
 
28
2.47
290
 
28
0.23
 
38
1.86
2,024
 
43
-0.69
 
40
1.68
2,967
 
18
0.61
 
51
0.47
4,079
 
14
0.80
 
30
2.45
3,758
 
15
0.70
 
41
1.67
1,156
 
41
-0.53
 
24
2.62
36,775
 
17
0.63
 
29
2.46
110,298
 
30
0.15
 
32
2.34
7,685
 
51
-2.37
 
31
2.41
721
 
36
-0.08
 
47
1.30
9,302
 
16
0.67
 
49
1.11
727
 
13
0.89
 
52
0.26
6,203
 
40
-0.49
 
36
2.18
1,358
 
19
0.60
 
34
2.25
23,688
 
24
0.31
 
33
2.33
4,694
 
34
-0.04
 
25
2.56
640
Undefined/Suppressed Counties
 
U
U
 
55
-1.61
61
 
U
U
 
S
S
142
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.00
 
2.68
1,184,055
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.64
 
2.68
9,105,900
November 2018
REAP_PI_CA1500N_511100_LSGL
 
   
Analysis Options Menu
Select Year Interval
to
Select Alternative Industry
Highlight a Region (Optional)
Copyright © 2019. Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Analysis Project (PNREAP). All Rights Reserved.

Please stay tuned...
while your request is processing:

Please wait while your request is being processed...
To offer the most comprehensive set of interactive options in support of your research, CA-REAP calculates and crunches most of the data and generates the narrative and graphic analysis on demand in response to your request.
Your request will soon be available.
Just a few more seconds....Your request has been generated and is now loading the results.