A recent article on The Conversation asserts that “building more homes won’t solve the affordable housing problem for the millions of people who need it most.” While the authors acknowledge that we need more housing, they don’t believe that this is a sufficient solution. The authors present numerous facts to bolster their argument, but these facts are considered out of context. In this three-part series, I examine their key points and what it would mean to consider the full context.
The authors state that families with extremely low incomes face the most problems finding affordable housing. They note that nearly two-thirds of renters paying at least half of their income on housing earn less than $20,000 a year. For such households, $500 a month is the most they can pay and stay in the affordable range (under 30 percent is considered affordable). The median rent in 2019 was $1,097, which requires a household income of $43,880.
There is no disputing the fact that a household making less that $20,000 a year will struggle to find decent, affordable housing. Fewer than 10 percent of all housing units rent for $500 or less. For many, these facts invoke feelings of sympathy for households with extremely low incomes. While sympathy might be understandable, emotions are not the basis for rational policy decisions.
If we want to make the best policy choices, then we must consider the full context. While housing advocates are quick to point out the difficulties faced by households with extremely low income, they say nothing about why such households make so little money. They fail to identify the cause for having extremely low income, and there are many potential causes.
One of the most fundamental causes for having an extremely low income is personal choices. As an example of this point, the authors cite a statistic often used by housing advocates: there is not a single state, metropolitan area, or county in which a full-time worker making the minimum wage can afford a two-bedroom apartment. I have no reason to doubt this, but it certainly raises some questions.
For example, why is a two-bedroom apartment the standard? Why does a household need two bedrooms? A single individual can live in a one-bedroom apartment or even a studio apartment, which would likely be much more affordable. Frequently, the story of a young couple with several children is used. But why is a young couple making minimum wage trying to raise a family? Asking that question invites accusations of racism and classism. However, if we want to make rational policy decisions, then we must consider the full context.
If a full-time worker making minimum wage can’t afford a two-bedroom apartment, it is virtually impossible for him to raise a child and obtain decent housing. And it was his choices that created his dire situation.
Further, why is he making minimum wage? Generally, only unskilled and low-skilled workers receive such pay. Why has this individual not improved his job skills in order to make more money? He has the power to choose to increase his earning potential.
I do not mean to suggest that we should be callous towards such individuals. However, we do them no favors by ignoring the cause for their situation. They would be better served if we held them accountable for their choices and counseled them to make better choices.
To ignore the role that personal choices have in the affordability of housing is to absolve individuals of responsibility for their choices. Choices do have consequences. If we want to make the best policy choices, then we must consider the full context, including the consequences of personal choices.
One comment
Comments are closed.