California’s affordability problem is widespread, but the September PPIC Statewide Survey shows that Californians are not experiencing it equally and they don’t agree on what government should do about it.
The survey, conducted September 4–10 among 1,745 California adults, finds persistent economic anxiety alongside significant differences by income, housing status, race and ethnicity, and region.
Those differences help explain why Californians can agree that the economy is difficult while reaching very different conclusions about taxes, government services and public policy.
Seven in 10 Californians say they expect bad financial times for the state during the next year. About six in 10 report that recent price increases have caused financial hardship.
Housing adds another layer of pressure. Forty-four percent say housing costs create at least some financial strain on their household.
But statewide averages conceal important differences.
Housing strain is reported by about two-thirds of adults with household incomes below $40,000, compared with about one-third of those earning $100,000 or more.
The survey also finds that 70% of Californians believe the state is divided into economic “haves” and “have-nots.”
That perception is broader than personal income alone. Even among Californians earning $100,000 or more, about two-thirds see an economic divide in the state.
For broader context on the state’s economic pressures, the Public Policy Institute of California’s research on poverty in California finds that about one-third of Californians were living in or near poverty in 2024.
Latino Californians report significant pressure
The economic differences are particularly relevant for Latino Californians.
About 68% of Latino adults say recent price increases have caused financial hardship, compared with 52% of white adults and 46% of Asian American adults.
Latinos are also more likely to report housing strain: 52% say housing costs create at least some financial pressure on their household.
That pressure is consistent with other recent housing research covered by Parriva, including its reporting on the continuing homeownership affordability gap for Latino Californians and the barriers facing younger Latino Californians trying to buy a home.
At the same time, 71% of Latino likely voters say a gubernatorial candidate’s position on affordability is very important to their vote.
The findings do not establish why these differences exist, or that economic pressure causes particular political preferences. They do show that affordability is experienced differently across California households and that those experiences matter when residents evaluate public policy.
Economic pressure doesn’t produce one answer about government
This is where the survey becomes more complicated than a simple story about Californians wanting lower costs.
Many Californians have limited trust in government. About six in 10 say they trust Sacramento to do what is right only some of the time.
Yet Californians do not respond to government and taxes as one bloc.
Previous PPIC surveys have found that a majority of Californians prefer lower taxes and fewer government services while also supporting particular tax increases or government programs. PPIC’s analysis of how Californians want to fix the state budget provides additional context for that tension.
The September survey continues that pattern across the state’s ballot measures.
For example, voters express different levels of support for taxes affecting high-income Californians, a proposed wealth tax, housing bonds and changes to local taxation.
That suggests that asking whether Californians simply want “higher taxes” or “smaller government” misses an important part of the picture.
People can make different judgments depending on who would pay, what government would provide and what problem a policy is intended to address.
The PPIC survey does not tell us which policy is correct.
It does show why California’s affordability debate is difficult.
A lower-income renter and a higher-income homeowner may experience the same statewide economy very differently. A Latino household experiencing significant price or housing pressure may have different priorities from another household facing fewer immediate financial constraints.
Parriva has looked into that housing divide in its reporting on California’s Latino homeownership gap.
And someone can believe government should address a problem while remaining skeptical about the institution doing it or about the taxes required to finance a particular solution.
Those aren’t necessarily contradictory positions. They are different judgments about cost, responsibility, services and who should bear the burden.
That may be the most useful lesson in the September PPIC data.
California’s affordability problem is broad enough to be a statewide concern, but its effects are uneven enough that there is no single household experience—and no single public response that all Californians are asking for.
For readers, understanding that distinction matters as California debates housing, health care, taxes, government spending and other policies that directly affect household budgets.
The survey can show what Californians say.
It cannot decide for them what government should do.
