Yet another report has come out with the finding that Los Angeles is still the least affordable place in the US to buy or rent a home (it's from Zillow this time): average wage-earners have to spend 40.1 percent of their income on a monthly mortgage payment or a disturbing 48.2 percent on monthly rent. (LA also has the highest percentage of renters of any US city, at more than half the population.) That's even worse for renters than it was when Zillow looked at the numbers last summer.

How much does Los Angeles have to build to get out of such a housing crisis? A lot. How much is it actually building? Just 187 units per every 1,000 new residents, lower than anywhere else in the US except Riverside, Sacramento, and San Antonio, all of which are still quite affordable (Riverside renters have it worst, paying 36.4 percent of their income toward housing, but that's just a bit above the recommended one-third.)

Renting is less affordable across the US than it's ever been, according to Zillow ("Since 2000, rents have grown at roughly twice the pace of incomes"), and it's worst in markets "where new housing permits have not kept up with population growth," no duh. But Los Angeles incomes are also stagnant and even declining, especially among middle- and low-income earners.

Crowded, expensive, high-earning San Francisco has a healthier housing market at this point than Los Angeles—the notoriously anti-change area is building 193 new units per 1,000 new residents and renters have to put a mere 44 percent of their income toward rent.

· Low Housing Supply Squeezes Affordability [Zillow]

· How Much Does Los Angeles Have to Build to Get Out of Its Housing Crisis? [Curbed LA]

· LA Is the Least Affordable Big City in the US For Buying a Home [Curbed LA]

· Los Angeles Has the Biggest Disconnect in the US Between Wages and Rents [Curbed LA]

· Bay Area Housing Prices Are Being Driven Up By Very Low Supply, Says Math [Curbed SF]