3 ms·

The way I see it, lack of affordable housing is part of that 'low income problem' I alluded to. It's one component of, for lack of a better term, material pover

by Jabanga 10y ago

The way I see it, lack of affordable housing is part of that 'low income problem' I alluded to. It's one component of, for lack of a better term, material poverty. I agree, Western economies have done a poor job on housing affordability these last few decades. From what I've read, most of the blame can be laid at the feet of 1. zoning restrictions and 2. ironically, rent control, both of which constrain supply.

Mz 10y ago
I have likely read more than you on this and I don't agree. I think this is a distinct issue, separate from low income. I am homeless. I have a low income. If housing prices were not so insane, I would find it easier to get off the street. "Low income" really does not adequately encapsulate the issue of crazy housing prices. It is more complicated than zoning restrictions and rent control, which no doubt contribute. We have also eliminated a lot of housing that historically worked well for single individuals with entry level jobs. We essentially expect such people these days to rent a two or three bedroom apartment designed for a nuclear family and get a roommate. This was not the historical norm for expectations and is not the norm in all parts of the world. It is a really broken model and it needs to go die somewhere.
- Jabanga 10y ago
  Income statistics adjust for inflation, so if housing costs go up, that will be reflected as lower real income. Your point, that "low income" doesn't do an effective job at describing the specific problem of rising rents, has validity. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if incomes had increased more, people would be able to afford to allocate a higher share of their income to housing costs, since the remainder of their larger income would be enough to cover their other expenses. In other words, higher costs are easier to bear with higher incomes. I'm not familiar with the demise of smaller/1-BR units. Any sources on that?
  - Mz 10y ago
    I have only just begun trying to research that specific piece in earnest (http://projectsro.blogspot.com http://projectsro.blogspot.com), but have already come across this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy): The United States saw a decrease in single room occupancy housing during the period of 1960s and 1970s urban decay. For example, in Chicago 81% of the SRO housing stock disappeared between 1960 and 1980. More generally, average housing size in the 1950s (US) was about 1200 sq ft. It is currently more than double that, while holding fewer people (iirc, about 2.5 vs 3.5 in the 50s). This is due in part to tax incentives. In real terms, housing costs have gone up because housing size and amenities have both gone up. It is nearly impossible to find basic, decent housing for a reasonable sum of money. The availability of affordable housing has fallen far short of need for decades and the problem has only gotten worse. At the same time, homelessness is on the rise. These facts are strongly linked. One of the best ways to reduce incidence of homelessness is to make more genuinely affordable housing available as part of the normal housing market, not some charity, government program or relief program. Just build basic housing and rent it or sell it. It might help to tax the hell out of people on second+ homes. I have read things that suggest that the rich owning vacation homes is a real problem for people of more ordinary means. The ultra rich have multiple residences. The poor can't get a home at all. This is a systemic problem, not just a few "losers" who aren't trying hard enough or something.

by Jabanga 10y ago

Mz 10y ago

I have likely read more than you on this and I don't agree. I think this is a distinct issue, separate from low income. I am homeless. I have a low income. If housing prices were not so insane, I would find it easier to get off the street. "Low income" really does not adequately encapsulate the issue of crazy housing prices. It is more complicated than zoning restrictions and rent control, which no doubt contribute. We have also eliminated a lot of housing that historically worked well for single individuals with entry level jobs. We essentially expect such people these days to rent a two or three bedroom apartment designed for a nuclear family and get a roommate. This was not the historical norm for expectations and is not the norm in all parts of the world. It is a really broken model and it needs to go die somewhere.

Jabanga 10y ago
Income statistics adjust for inflation, so if housing costs go up, that will be reflected as lower real income. Your point, that "low income" doesn't do an effective job at describing the specific problem of rising rents, has validity. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if incomes had increased more, people would be able to afford to allocate a higher share of their income to housing costs, since the remainder of their larger income would be enough to cover their other expenses. In other words, higher costs are easier to bear with higher incomes. I'm not familiar with the demise of smaller/1-BR units. Any sources on that?
- Mz 10y ago
  I have only just begun trying to research that specific piece in earnest (http://projectsro.blogspot.com http://projectsro.blogspot.com), but have already come across this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy): The United States saw a decrease in single room occupancy housing during the period of 1960s and 1970s urban decay. For example, in Chicago 81% of the SRO housing stock disappeared between 1960 and 1980. More generally, average housing size in the 1950s (US) was about 1200 sq ft. It is currently more than double that, while holding fewer people (iirc, about 2.5 vs 3.5 in the 50s). This is due in part to tax incentives. In real terms, housing costs have gone up because housing size and amenities have both gone up. It is nearly impossible to find basic, decent housing for a reasonable sum of money. The availability of affordable housing has fallen far short of need for decades and the problem has only gotten worse. At the same time, homelessness is on the rise. These facts are strongly linked. One of the best ways to reduce incidence of homelessness is to make more genuinely affordable housing available as part of the normal housing market, not some charity, government program or relief program. Just build basic housing and rent it or sell it. It might help to tax the hell out of people on second+ homes. I have read things that suggest that the rich owning vacation homes is a real problem for people of more ordinary means. The ultra rich have multiple residences. The poor can't get a home at all. This is a systemic problem, not just a few "losers" who aren't trying hard enough or something.