Why L.A. is struggling while San Francisco is beginning to boom again 44%

By Terry Castleman40%

5/6/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Optimism Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16% saturation with 157 hits. Analysis detected 528 faulty-reasoning hits from 984 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.8% and a BS Rank of 44% (12,440 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.80% of the article peer group.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought tough times for both Los Angeles and San Francisco. 
Crime briefly rose. 
Rising housing prices combined with the opportunity to work remotely led to declines in population. 
Concerns over blights and quality of life became political issues. 
But now, there are early signs of a postcrisis divergence in fortunes between the two cities. 
San Francisco is in the midst of a new tech boom fueled by artificial intelligence that has lured new residents to the city and boosted a downtown economy. 
The city netted a small increase in population last year, according to new U.S. census data. 
Los Angeles County, by contrast, is still struggling. 
Population losses are continuing, and its economy is being hit by several forces including a shrinking Hollywood industry and President Trump's immigration policies that have slowed growth and upended some business sectors. 
It will take many more years to see whether this become a larger trend. 
Demographers say the San Francisco boost is notable but far from a sign of boom times ahead. 
In fact, many experts say high housing prices and other factors continue to make more affordable cities outside California very attractive, especially to younger people. 
"Housing is of course at the top of the line for most people who are leaving," said Hans Johnson, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. 
"San Francisco is experiencing a sort of AI boom even as other components of tech aren't doing as well." 
Census data show San Franicsco's population was up 0.62% in 2025, in contrast to statewide numbers that remained mostly flat while L.A. 
County recorded a 0.55% decrease. 
Another tech center just south of San Francisco  Santa Clara County  saw its population rise 0.33%. 
In San Diego County, the population dropped 0.16%. 
The percentage changes are not huge, but they offer a snapshot of the regions. 
In raw numbers, L.A. 
County lost about 54,000 people from July 2024 to July 2025, the largest numeric population decline in the nation, data from the Census Bureau show. 
A major factor in 2025's population trends was a sharp drop in net international migration. 
As the Trump administration launched an aggressive clampdown on immigration, L.A. 
County saw the number of new residents coming in from abroad plummet from 92,000 people in 2024 to 29,000 in 2025. 
Silicon Valley and L.A. reported losses similar to those of other states from 2024 to 2025, said Jenna Nobles, a professor of demography at UC Berkeley, but in Santa Clara County, international workers brought to the U.S. by tech companies in Northern California helped stave off population losses to other states. 
That was not the case in Los Angeles County, which had a net loss of 105,000 residents because of domestic migration out of the region in 2025, a slight increase from the previous year when the county lost 99,629. 
Hollywood is not a huge piece of the Los Angeles County employment. 
But it has become a source of major concern, with film and television shooting moving out of the state and job losses topping 45,000 in recent years. 
Those and other forces may have played a role in the nearly 40% of office space available in downtown Los Angeles at the end of last year, according to the real estate firm CBRE. 
Overall vacancy there climbed from 14% in 2019 to 34% in 2025. 
Adding to Southern California's economic struggles, the Eaton and Palisades fires contributed to a net loss of 0.5% in gross domestic product in Los Angeles County in 2025, according to a study by UCLA Anderson School of Management. 
Office leasing in San Francisco, meanwhile, rose by 20% in 2024 and reached its highest level since 2019, per the San Francisco Examiner, as AI companies brought in tens of billions of dollars in venture money. 
Though office vacancy in San Francisco was at 34.4%, more space was leased than vacated for the first time since 2019, according to the San Francisco Standard. 
San Francisco's unemployment rate was 4.1% in January, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. 
Louis. 
In Los Angeles County, it was 5.5%. 
Johnson cautions about reading too much into the numbers  at least at this point. 
"San Francisco has built a bit of new housing, most of it multiunit housing and large buildings," he said. 
In both L.A. and San Francisco, the number of people per household has been going down as births decrease. 
San Francisco already had a very low number of children per household, so it has been affected less by the nationwide decline in birth rates, he said. 
"Los Angeles has further to fall," Johnson said. 
Another difference between the two cities is net migration to other states. 
San Francisco's out-migration declined from tens of thousands per year during the pandemic emergency to about 100 people last year, while L.A. 
County's net loss was more than 100,000, Johnson said. 
Since L.A. 
County's population is more than 10 times that of San Francisco County, a net loss of 100,000 Angelenos would be proportionally similar to losing 10,000 San Franciscans. 
"The big picture is that neither place's population is changing much population-wise  it's not like San Francisco is taking off," he said, "and it's not like Southern California is having huge declines in population." 
"We've moved from this young, growing, booming state to something more like a mature, slow-growing state," Johnson said. 
"More like New York than Texas." 
The census findings should also affect state planning, he said. 
"There's some real challenges there in terms of having enough workers to support an aging population." 
If populations stall, tax revenue may follow  especially sales taxes, per an analysis by CalMatters  leading to less spending power for the state as inflation brings costs up. 
Times staff writer Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 2.8%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Terry Castleman: 5.7%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect1.2%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.1%Terry Castleman: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias8.1%This article: 4.7%Terry Castleman: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 16.0%Terry Castleman: 5.1%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 4.4%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.0%Terry Castleman: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope3.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.6%Terry Castleman: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization1.6%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.8%Terry Castleman: 5.7%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.8%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.9%Terry Castleman: 2.8%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 4.4%Terry Castleman: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terry Castleman: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

984 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech715writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 29 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJenna Nobles • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 27 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 22 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 35 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 18 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 6 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageHans Johnson • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Hans Johnson

7.8%flagged-word coverage
218 attributed words81% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Hans Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Hans Johnson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.