Posted on 01/19/2009 9:06:20 PM PST by jazusamo
Behind the housing boom and bust was one of those alluring but undefined phrases that are so popular in politics-- "affordable housing."
It is hard for me to know specifically what politicians are talking about when they use this phrase. But then politics is about evoking emotions, not examining specifics.
In looking back over my own life, I find it hard to think of a time when I didn't live in affordable housing.
When I first left home, back in 1948, I rented a room about 4 by 8 feet, costing $5.75 a week. Since my take-home pay was $22.50, that was affordable housing. (Multiply these numbers by about ten to get the equivalent in today's prices).
After three years of living in rented rooms, I began living in Marine Corps barracks, and sometimes tents-- none of which cost me anything. That was certainly affordable.
As a civilian again, in 1954 I rented my first apartment, a studio apartment-- small but affordable. But a year later, I went off to college and lived in dormitories on various campuses for the next six years. None was fancy but all of them were affordable.
After completing my academic studies, I rented another studio apartment-- not a big advance, but it was affordable.
In 1969, I rented my first house, which I could now afford, after several years as a faculty member at various colleges and universities. A dozen years later, I began to buy my first house.
While the specifics will differ from person to person, my general pattern was not unusual. Most people pay for what they can afford at the time.
What, then, is the "problem" that politicians claim to be solving when they talk about creating "affordable housing"?
What they are saying and doing usually boils down to trying to enable people to choose what housing they want first-- and then have some law or policy where somebody else, somewhere else, somehow or other, makes that housing "affordable" for them.
If you think it through, that is a policy for disaster. We cannot all go around buying whatever we want, whether or not we have enough money to afford it, and have somebody else make up the difference. For society as a whole, there is no somebody else.
But of course political slogans are not meant to be thought through, are they? They are often an emotional substitute for thinking at all.
Sometimes some semblance of rationality is given to the phrase "affordable housing" by comparing the cost of housing to the income of those who live in it. That was certainly what I did when I rented my first room. That's not rocket science, then or now.
The difference is that today there is some arbitrary percentage of one's income that sets the limit to what the government will consider to be affordable housing. It used to be 25 percent but it might be 30 percent or some other proportion.
But, whatever the percentage, it is no longer the individual's responsibility to choose housing that fits within that limit. It is somehow the taxpayers' job to make up the difference, when someone chooses housing whose cost exceeds that magic number.
It is certainly no longer considered to be the individual's own responsibility to acquire the work skills and experience to be able to earn enough to afford better housing as the years passed. Why do that, when the government can simply "spread the wealth around," to use another political phrase?
The ultimate irony is that increasing government intervention in the housing market over the years has generally made housing less affordable than before, by any standard.
A hundred years ago, Americans spent a smaller percentage of their incomes on housing than they do today. In 1901, housing costs took 23 percent of the average American's income. By 2003, it took 33 percent of a far larger income.
In particular places where government regulations and restrictions have been especially severe, such as coastal California, rents or monthly mortgage payments have averaged as high as 50 percent of the average person's income.
Most of our problems are not nearly as severe as political "solutions." In housing, government policies have lured people into situations that were untenable to them and to the country.
I'll go one up on Dr. Sowell and say they always are.
Bart.
Wow, doing the math, he bought his first house at ~51? That’s amazing.
Bush was also an adherent it seems at times, proclaiming "Affordable Housing Week" and other such nonsense on many occasions from the White House. It is part and parcel of Compassionate Conservatism, and itself an anathema to Conservatism.
Lord help us when both parties pander this way, and there is not yet a strong enough, viable third party conservative route to challenge it.
.... makes too much sense. He must be punished
Sadly I think you’re right about both parties.
Absolutely! :-)
You can as long as 51% of the electorate pays no taxes...you do it by forced expropriation from the 49%...for a while.
I dont ever remember eading Thomas Sowell wa a Marine!
OOH RUH!
Yes, Ive read it several times. He was a range instructor for a time for (I believe) pistol.
I don’t think that is correct. I could be way off, but IIRC in a previous article Dr. Sowell stated he had left home at age 17. I remember that because I too was 17 when I left home. So doing MY math LOL, it would seem to me he would have been 38 when he bought his first home. I believe Dr. Sowell is 78 at this time. 1969 was 40 years ago...so yes, he would have been 38.
This is why socialism is so dangerous to a democracy.
The strength of a democracy depends on the strength, intelligence and skill of its citizenry.
This is just a brilliant observation by Sowell.
Well said...Unfortunately the numbers on the dole are increasing rapidly with the help of our government.
I’ve been banging together houses for three decades.
A basic house is illegal now.
The nice houses I grew up in are illegal.
I’d say houses could be half the price, and they would be fine.
The local governments are motivated to have houses cost as much as they can so that they can tax on the higher sales cost and yearly tax on the higher value.
Existing, got in cheap, or less, owners like more expensive houses because it makes their house more valuable, with out them having to pick up any of the cost. I.E., everyone wants to live in a expensive neighborhood/town, but have a non expensive house.
Existing home owners are against lower cost housing/methods/materials because it makes their previous purchases less valuable.
Banks, finance, governments all like manufacturing higher home prices.....until the market collapses. Where upon the government raises taxes on existing home owners.
Rise, lather, repeat.
Poverty is job insurance for government.
Why does it seem that common sense is in such a short supply these days?
Thomas Sowell...if only he’d been elected our first black president!
Good post...and thanks for posting it!
I’m sure you’re right about construction and costs today vs years ago.
25 years ago I built our own place from bottom up, the only thing I contracted was drywall. It was a great place and I built it reasonable.
I see new home construction now and don’t recognize much of it, materials and methods have changed drastically. I understand fees and permits are out of sight and most everything has to be engineered. I really doubt I could do it now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.