It was 32 years ago this month I started my journalism voyage at the Orange County Register.

And for 32 years, there’s been one constant debate in the county: How much growth is enough?

There’s the business boosters pushing for the opportunities that growth can create vs. folks seeking a slower pace, arguing the county’s quality of life has been tarnished by overbuilding. And that’s simply two of the dimensions in a multi-layered discussion.

My years of watching the local business climate suggest the “slow growth” movement gains the most traction when times are flush. And when the economy is hurting, the growth voices get heard. It’s basic survival instincts.

Economic and political gyrations aside, the bottom line is that Orange County is a mature economy that’s witnessing a long-run moderation of its expansion by many measures.

What causes this cooling of growth? (And remember, we are still talking growth.)

It’s likely a mix of everything from the natural evolution of regional economies to government interference to corporate indifference. And don’t forget the economic scars from the Great Recession, too.

To portray this change, I filled my trusty spreadsheet with key data points from 1986 (my arrival to Orange County), plus the latest figures available, and my life midpoint in California (2002). I found growth, just less of it.

Let’s start with Orange County’s population, which has expanded at a 0.68 percent annualized rate since 2002 to 3.2 million. That recent growth is less than half of the 1986-2002 pace.

Imagine if growth had instead held steady the old 1.64 percent-a-year pace. We’d have 489,688 more Orange Countians or an extra 15 percent. Where would we put them?

Orange County’s hiring has slowed, too. Adding 200,000 jobs since 2002 equals 0.93 percent yearly growth — about half 1986-2002’s pace. But if local bosses had continued to hire at the old 2 percent-a-year rate — unlikely unless the recession never happened — we’d have another 284,000 new workers. But I’m sure office landlords would love that!

Now when it comes to pay, measured by per capita income, a cooling can hurt. The 3.37 percent annualized growth since 2002 brought it to $62,071, but those hikes ran at only one-fifth off the 1986-2002 pace. If income did grow like it once did — 4.28 percent-a-year — per capita income would be $9,014 higher today.

Now a slowdown in inflation is good news for shoppers. Southern California’s Consumer Price Index rose at a 2.26 percent annualized since 2002 — approximately one-quarter less than 1986-2002’s 3.12 percent pace. That helps stretch those slower-growing paychecks.

Related Articles Pandemic ‘upended’ Orange County life, business report says

Soaring wealth during pandemic highlights rising inequality

What pandemic rebound? Only 27% of Southern California’s lost jobs replaced

34 arrested in what the EDD calls a web of unemployment fraud

39% of California workforce has filed for jobless claims since March Of course, reduced growth in population, jobs, and income didn’t stop home prices from rising … at a reduced pace.

Home prices appreciated at a 4.35 percent annualized rate since 2002, roughly one-fifth slower than what was seen in 1986-2002.

House hunters should be thankful because if the old 5.58 percent-a-year increases continued, the median selling price would roughly be $813,000 today — or another 19 percent higher.

Curiously, there’s one growth trend that’s held firm in my Orange County tenure: Disneyland admission.

The cost of a one-day adult pass has risen at a 6 percent annualized clip in both the 1986-2002 period as well as afterward. Of course, in my 32 years, Disneyland has spent heavily, adding the California Adventure park on top of sprucing up almost every inch of the legacy attraction.

Disney fan, or not, you’ve got to admit that the Happiest Place on Earth’s ability to grow its ticket pricing is magical.

PS: Want slow growth? Try Pittsburgh, where I worked for seven years before moving West. Since I left the Steel City 32 years ago, Orange County has added 1 million residents. Pittsburgh’s 2.3 million population is roughly the same.