Housing affordability improves when population growth eases

Whether immigration fuels the housing crisis is hotly debated. Recent wide fluctuations in population growth have provided a natural experiment. The data are in: slowing population growth makes housing more affordable.

by Jane O’Sullivan

In the past two decades, many high-income countries have endured unprecedented increases in the cost of homes to buy or rent. Many of them also faced accelerated population growth via increased immigration. Many progressive groups insist population growth does not cause housing inflation, claiming migrants are being scapegoated. However, advocates for lower immigration generally do not blame migrants, but the governments that choose to encourage high immigration rates.

Population growth alone does not govern housing affordability. Other factors simultaneously influence real estate prices, including government provision of subsidised housing, tax treatment favouring housing over other investments, planning regulations and foreign investment flows. The positive feedback when any asset class appreciates and attracts more investors can further fuel this inflation. Still, raw numbers matter and the law of supply and demand can’t reasonably be denied.

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, population growth has fluctuated wildly in the developed world, particularly in Anglo-sphere countries. This gives us an opportunity to see how rents respond to population change.

Canada

Canada had a particularly sharp post-pandemic migrant influx, with population growth peaking above 3% per annum in 2023-2024. The rapidly mounting pressures on housing and infrastructure, together with a looming election, prompted a policy back-flip from the Trudeau administration. After years of promoting rapid growth, in 2024 it scaled back temporary entrants and tightened measures to prevent overstaying. Permanent visas were only modestly reduced, as they mainly convert temporary residents to permanence. The net exodus of temporary migrants dropped population growth to near zero by the second half of 2025.  

Rents, which had declined during the pandemic border closure, grew at an excruciating 8-12% per year during the immigration surge of 2022-2023. But they immediately stopped growing when the new policy came into effect and have declined over the past year (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Canada’s change in asking rents (for new listings, all property types), year-over-year, from December 2020 to December 2025. Source: Rentals.ca

Within Canada, the cities which used to receive most migrants have seen the greatest declines in rental prices. In 2025, Vancouver and Toronto rents fell 6.6% and 4.8% respectively.

New Zealand

New Zealand also saw an abrupt peak and decline in population growth after the pandemic. The small island nation has a free movement agreement with Australia, which means shifts in relative job prospects between the two countries can rapidly alter migration flows. Recent emigration flows mean population growth has dropped well below the rate of new home completions (Figure 2). The number of homes listed for rent increased by almost 13% in 2025, while rents on new listings fell throughout the year.

Figure 2: New Zealand growth in population (black) and dwelling stock (brown). Source: Antipodean Macro via Macrobusiness

United Kingdom

The UK has seen a similarly steep retreat from its huge post-pandemic migrant intake of near 900,000 in 2023 to nearer 200,000 in 2025 (Figure 3). This level is typical of the pre-pandemic decade, but still historically high.

Figure 3: UK net migration, Dec 1991 – June 2025. Source: Migration Observatory

UK rental growth has slowed as population growth has slowed, now tracking below income growth, improving affordability. Nationally, rents grew 2.2% (annualised) in October 2025 (Figure 4), but the slow-down was greatest in the least affordable areas: London rents grew only 1.6%, about half the rate of general inflation.

Figure 4: UK change in asking rents for new listings, all property types, year-over-year, from October 2015 to October 2025. Source: Zoopla

USA

The US has also seen a rapid deceleration in population growth since the Trump administration aggressively enforced controls on both legal and illegal immigration. Net international migration fell from roughly 2.7 million in 2024 to about 1.3 million in 2025 — with the prospect of further decreases to come (Figure 5).

Figure 5: USA estimates of net international migration components, 2020 to 2026. Source: US Census Bureau

To take one example, Los Angeles County shrank by 28,000 people in 2025, even while new apartments hit the market. Rental vacancy rates rose to 5.3% and rents shrank to a four-year low, after rising for years. Denver, Colorado saw a similar rent fall. Vacancies have risen to 7.5% and some landlords now offer sweeteners like a month’s free rent or a $1000 gift voucher to entice renters.

National housing data also reflect these changes. The national median rent in the USA declined for the sixth consecutive month in January 2026, falling 1.4 % year over year to $1,353 per month – the lowest level since 2022.

China

China’s housing market has also seen a steady decline since its population peaked in 2021. Rents followed suit, declining each year since 2022. While economic growth boffins claim this is a crisis, it’s a great thing for Chinese households, helping to ensure the next generation lives better than the last.

Australia

Meanwhile, in Australia, population growth remains well above pre-pandemic levels and new housing completions have fallen well short of demand growth. As a result, rents have risen 31% over the past four years.

Figure 6: Australia’s annual growth rate of working-age population (blue) and of rents (red), 1990 – 2025. Source: Gerard Minack via Macrobusiness

As shown in Figure 6, rental price hikes have tracked population growth relatively closely, diverging only from 2016 to 2019 as an apartment-building boom eased housing shortages. Meanwhile, real household incomes in Australia have stagnated. The average rent cost 26% of average household income in 2020 and 33% in 2025 (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Australia % of income required to service rent, 2002 – 2025. Source: Microbusiness

The Upshot

The pattern is clear: rapid population growth increases housing costs, while slowing or reversing population growth reverses this trend. As housing affordability is a key driver of economic inequality and social stratification, a gentle deflation of housing costs should benefit most people – all except wealthy property speculators. Political progressives should remember this next time they denounce calls to moderate migration.

Published

21 responses to “Housing affordability improves when population growth eases”

  1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

    Interestingly, what I keep reading in the media is that people are leaving New Zealand for Australia because rents are too high in NZ. Maybe wages are part of the story here too.

    How can anyone argue that population has nothing to do with housing prices and construction? There are some places in Italy where houses are sold for a few thousand euros, or even given away for free, because no one lives there anymore. Or the population has fallen significantly (I own one such house, and it’s basically impossible to sell it). You don’t see that in Milan.

    1. Jane O'Sullivan Avatar

      Gaia, I’m interested to know whether you think having very cheap housing in locations that are probably inaccessible to jobs for most people, has a tempering impact on housing costs in growing cities like Milan. Are there enough people giving up on the rat-race to retreat to areas where the cost of living is much lower to keep housing affordable in the cities? I think this is not the case in Japan, where Tokyo’s housing is still inflating faster than wages.

      1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

        I think that a lot of people try it, but it doesn’t work in many or even most cases. There’s a reason those places were abandoned!
        It’s hard to get a job, especially at the wage levels people expect. You can commute, but it’s a *long* ride. Also, isolated communities are often not as welcoming as people expect (in Japan especially, I hear). I tried it, I lived in one for years and I liked it, but it was very hard and required a mental openness and adaptability that I hadn’t anticipated. I’ve lived in different continents but the biggest culture shock I’ve had was in a mountain village close to home. Small communities have their own rules, expectations, etc. And there’s less amenities, less cultural life, shopping, variety, etc. If you don’t get along with the people, you can’t get a different social circle. If something breaks down, it doesn’t go back up immediately. We were without electricity for days once, after a natural disaster, with intermittent electricity for weeks.
        People don’t understand that living in a rural or wilder place isn’t like hiking, you actually have to stay there.
        Based on anecdotal evidence, a lot of people end up going back to the city. My main reason for going back to the city, aside from the personal stuff, was that I couldn’t keep raising animals by myself in a place where I had no family and I was unable to hire anyone because people from the villages wanted better-paying factory or construction jobs, and no one really wanted to move there with me.
        Very very touristic areas are different, but there you have the opposite problem, locals can’t afford housing.

        I think that you would need public policies to sort that out. Even creative ones. For example, we could stop demanding a university degree for everything – that’s one thing that brings people to big cities. Also, delocalise power and administration, reduce migration, which tends to concentrate in big cities, etc.

        Also, Italy is seriously overbuilt. There are places, such as Britain, where even rural housing is in high demand, but here they’ve let people build wherever (very Italian), so the land is a mess, and there’s lots of unwanted houses in unattractive places.

  2. Mark Tang Avatar

    Well, I want to believe the correlation is true, but it gets tricky when assessing the dynamics of people on the move, especially as per Japan and Italy maybe, leaving rural villages, creating vacancies there, only to face increased congestion in cities (traditional job centers) as in China and even US’s ‘rust belt’ etc. Taking a snap shot of an entire country becomes problematic.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Yes but in some countries, either because they are relatively new (in their present state), such as NZ or Canada, or because there are restrictions on where you can or cannot build (such as the UK), you don’t have that many rural homes available either.

    2. Jane O'Sullivan Avatar

      You are right, Mark – conditions can vary widely within countries. But, since most migrants gravitate to the big cities, reducing migration tends to reduce rents most in the cities where housing is most expensive.

  3. Claire Cafaro Avatar

    Gaia, I wish all of my politically correct friends who advocate for Open Borders and Sanctuary Cities could read your response to Jane.
    In my view they are victims of nostalgia, when the immigrant story, despite initial challenges, had a fairy tale ending and everybody “lived happily ever after”.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Well, early immigrants to the US were either perpetrators or beneficiaries of the genocide of the natives, so I wouldn’t call it a “happily ever after”.
      And some species went extinct very early on.

  4. Claire Cafaro Avatar

    Yes, that was my point.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Sorry! I have some comprehension issues 🙂

  5. Dag Lindgren Avatar

    That the demand for housing falls when population does is a reason that overpopulation is taboo. The influent well-established people own houses where they live or spend free-time or rent out to others. If the demand for housing raises they become richer but if it shrinks they loose and become less rich. Thus they argue for raising population is a good thing and shrinking population is bad.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Yep – house owners and builders are quite a lobby. Italy accumulated even more public debt by subsidising renovations – by giving to owners 110% of the expense! Of course there was a lot of fraud too. All in the name of “energy efficiency” (even of large or second homes…) and GDP. Very popular move, quite disgusting if you ask me. Basically money thrown at rich people.

      1. Simon Cole Avatar

        Very interesting to read of your extensive experience making a go of it in several different countries where housing is dirt cheap. My guess is that the key to being employed in those places is to have a trade skill everyone needs – or more than one. Like being a handyman, electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc.. Do you think that would make a difference to it being a viable, long term prospect? I image you’d make friends easily too.

    2. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Simon, I replied below.

  6. Stable Genius Avatar

    March 2026, Carney visited Albanese in Canberra, addressed our Parliament. It goes without saying, the visit was framed around the tedious metaphysics of Middle Powers vs Trump. Predictably, no one in the press gallery asked Carney, about the critical, practical, difference between him and Albanese.

    Like the headline says, the former has eased population growth, to improve housing affordability. The latter still has annual net-migration running higher than 1% of population, the highest of any wealthy nation. Instead of improving housing affordability, he prefers to lecture disenfranchised voters, to Lower The Temperature and Mind Their Cohesion.

  7. Elinor Hurst Avatar

    Good article, Jane. I’m wondering why you don’t discuss the impact of population growth on house prices though? I would be interested in an article which went into this as well.

  8. Jane O'Sullivan Avatar

    The impact of population growth or contraction on house prices is a more complex picture, more influenced by local policies and contexts. In the long run, population pressure will generally be reflected in land prices, but in the short term, other things intervene and muddy the water. For example, in about April 2020, the Australian government (for all its crocodile tears about housing affordability) got really worried that the exodus of migrants due to the pandemic would cause house prices to plummet. So they introduced several initiatives to stimulate the market: interest rates went to record lows, they let first-home buyers access their superannuation to fund a deposit, offered first-home buyer grants and grants for renovations (aimed at keeping construction workers employed). Add that to people having been forced by lock-downs into too much interaction with their house-mates or parents, and the number of people wanting to buy their own place soured. These measures were seen as temporary so there was an added FOMO effect. Also, while those leaving the country were mostly temporary migrants who rented, a big influx of ex-pats returning home were cashed-up and looking to buy. The result was a rapid escalation of house prices while population growth almost stopped, which the pro-immigration lobby has been holding up ever since as proof that population growth has nothing to do with house prices. All it proves is that a government can orchestrate housing inflation if it tries – at least in the short term. But when a city’s population declines so that there are houses left empty that are both habitable and within commuting range of jobs, then prices must come down.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Something similar seems to have happened in Italy, anecdotally, when the government gave massive subsidies for renovating. It appeared to me that the price of old houses rose, but only temporarily, I imagine because people figured that such subsidies wouldn’t last forever, or because those houses were in not very desirable places. And renovating is still expensive, meaning that it still works out as a subsidy to the better off.
      It’s amazing, though, what governments are willing to do to keep houses prices up and construction workers employed. Out of all things we could be spending on…

    2. Jane O'Sullivan Avatar

      Here’s another article demonstrating the link between population growth and house price growth, comparing states of Australia since the pandemic: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2026/03/the-evidence-is-clear-population-growth-drives-house-prices/
      (The key is the gap between population growth and new housing supply, although older, larger, better located houses will always appreciate faster than the average.)

  9. Katharine Betts Avatar

    Thanks Jane
    A really useful piece,
    Kathy B

  10. gaiabaracetti Avatar

    Simon, I only have direct experience in Italy, my country, but I’ve heard other stories.
    My experience is that the skills you mention tend to be the ones that people living in rural places also possess, either because they work in those sectors, or because they have learnt to do manual labour themselves. In my case, it was more useful to possess more academic skills. The others, I mostly learnt from the people around me, although not in every case.
    At any rate, we tend to overestimate how much difference individual choice and effort make in our economic prospects. If that was the case, we wouldn’t see so many hard working poor people in poor countries, and lazy rich people in rich ones. There are reasons why rural areas were abandoned, and most of those are systemic.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NOTE: Comments with more than one link will be held in wait and will only become visible on the site after an admin has approved it.

Explore the content and topics covered by TOP, search here

Blog categories
Gallery of infographics – Learn more about overpopulation and environment

Discover more from The Overpopulation Project

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading