The price of living in paradise is getting awfully high.

Fresh federal spending data shows 30 percent of Southern California incomes are going toward housing costs — the highest burden among major U.S. markets — as the number of local renters jumped by one-third as rents soared by nearly two-thirds in the past decade.

The average Southern Californian “consumer unit” — as this study dubs households — spent $23,393 annually in 2015-16 on housing out of a typical $77,062 household income. Housing’s 30 percent bite out of local incomes was the largest slice out of 22 major U.S. markets tracked.

I found these trends by filling my trusty spreadsheet with American spending habits tracked to keep the Consumer Price Index in line with current household budgets. Southern California was defined as Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, a region stretching from the ocean to Nevada and Arizona that’s home to 6 million households.

Expensive local housing is no surprise, but these stats give a good look into their impact on typical household budgets.

Southern California average incomes did grow 9 percent since 2005-06, the last economic peak. But that good news — a $6,215 jump in annual income — didn’t keep up with $6,280 in additional spending.

The decade’s big surges in average local costs included rising overall housing expenses, up $2,203 yearly, or 10 percent; health care costs up $1,509, or 65 percent; and food expenditures up $772, or 11 percent.

And please note the seemingly modest overall increase in housing costs belie the varied change in financial fortunes.

Southern California’s average yearly expense of owning a dwelling has fallen in a decade by $1,732, or 19 percent. Homeowners should thank a steep drop in mortgage rates for much of that savings.

But by this math, the amount of money spent on rent by Southern California households jumped by an average $2,956 a year — or 62 percent — in 10 years.

That translated to Southern California having $469 higher annual rent costs than ownership. Only one other market out of the 22 — Honolulu — had rent costs higher than owning.

One reason a greater amount of money is going toward landlords is declining ownership. The share of locals living in homes they own fell to 50 percent in 2015-16 from 57 percent a decade earlier.

Or look at this key change in housing dynamics in terms of local households, which grew by 14 percent in 10 years. Southern California renter households grew by roughly 749,000 in 10 years — a 33 percent jump. Meanwhile, the number of local homeowners was essentially flat.

If placing a roof over one’s head wasn’t painful enough to Southern California wallets, consider other housing-related budget breakers.

The yearly bills for utilities, fuels, and public services are $680 more costly in a decade, a 23 percent jump. And expenses such as furnishings, equipment, operations, and housekeeping rose a combined $162 yearly, or 4 percent since 2005-06.

If Southern California bosses keep hiring like they have in this extended economic expansion, and the population continues to expand, demand for housing will continue to grow. Limits on new supply — from government and neighborly objections to developer wariness of any huge buildup — make further growing housing costs likely.

But less building only means more people under each roof, not less congestion. Look what my trusty spreadsheet tells me:

1. The average local household had 2.8 people in 2015-16. That’s the most-dense living among the 22 markets tracked. Can you say, “roommates”?

2. On average, there are 1.5 workers in a Southern California household, second highest only to Washington D.C. Ah, the two-income family!

Remember, the “Build it and they will come” real estate mantra?

In Southern California, it appears to have become: “Don’t build it, they’ll double up!”