Let me paint yet another portrait of just how pricey house hunting has become in Los Angeles County: The number of homes that can be comfortably financed has been cut by 72 percent in five years, by one affordability benchmark.

The National Association of Home Builders tracks the percentage of homes sold in a region that could be bought by a typical family, at prevailing mortgage terms, without the resulting house payments busting their budget.

I put the association’s second-quarter report into my trusty spreadsheet to learn that “affordability” has dipped since 2013 in 201 of the 217 U.S. markets I could track. The local snapshot was not pretty.

By this math, Los Angeles County had 8 percent of its recently sold homes meet the association’s affordability logic, the second-worst score nationally. That’s because there are 72 percent fewer “affordable” L.A. homes vs. five years ago — the third largest drop nationally.

Why so bad? L.A.’s second-quarter median selling price was $613,000 — up 51 percent in five years — while incomes rose by only 10 percent to $68,000.

In Orange County, 9.5 percent of homes were affordable, third-worst nationally. That translates to 67 percent fewer affordable homes in five years — No. 7 biggest dip nationally. The median selling price was $740,000 up 38 percent. Incomes rose by 11 percent to $93,000.

To the east in the Inland Empire, 30.3 percent of homes were affordable. While it’s the regional high mark, it’s also the 19th worst nationally.

So, Riverside and San Bernardino counties had 51 percent fewer affordable homes — the 20th biggest dip nationally. The median price was $350,000 up 54 percent; incomes rose by 5 percent to $65,800

The increased financial hurdles are not just due to rising incomes failing to keep pace with souped-up pricing. Higher mortgage rates didn’t help buyers either. Mortgage rates in the second quarter averaged 4.5 percent for a 30-year loan, up from 3.7 percent from five years ago. That alone makes financing 10 percent more expensive.

On the other hand, these indexes don’t capture jobs growth’s true impact on housing demand.

It’s not just about higher pay. More folks at work — such as the 835,000 jobs created in Southern California in the past five years — creates more qualified house hunters, even when homes seem very expensive. (Hypothetically, if one assumes just 20 percent of new Southern California jobs pay enough to buy a home … that’s an additional 167,000 potential homebuyers!)

Nationally, it’s almost as painful: 57 percent of the homes bought in the second quarter — with a median price of $265,000, up 31 percent since 2013 — were “affordable” by this math. And that affordability measure is down 18 percent in five years. Why? Well, the typical U.S. household’s income rose by just 12 percent to $71,900.

But if you think L.A. housing math is bad, try San Francisco! The nation’s least affordable metro, by this math, with just 5.5 percent of homes sold meeting the association’s sensible-buying standards. By the way, San Francisco’s latest median price was $1.35 million, up 73 percent in five years.

Most affordable? Kokomo, Ind., where 95.4 percent of homes sold met the sensibly-priced bar. It helps that the median was $124,000 vs. incomes of $64,100 — not far from what’s made in L.A. or the Inland Empire.

PS: The New York-New Jersey metro area was the most improved market in the nation, one of just 16 regions where affordability is up — with 11 percent more affordable homes in five years.

How’d that happen? While incomes rose 18 percent, prices went … errr … flat!