The ‘Affordability Crisis’ myth

We hear it everywhere: housing affordability crisis, health care affordability crisis, childcare affordability crisis. The language is so common that we don’t stop to ask what it actually means — or what it conceals.

Here’s the problem: “affordability” isn’t a real thing you can fix. It’s a word that makes concrete problems disappear into fog.

The Language Trick

Compare these two statements: “I can’t pay my rent because my wages haven’t kept up with costs.” “There is an affordability crisis.”

The first one is clear. You know what’s happening and why. The second one? All the critical details vanish. Who raised the costs? Why haven’t wages increased? What’s actually preventing people from getting what they need?

The word “affordability” erases these questions. And that’s useful if you want to look as though you’re solving problems without actually confronting what caused them.

Add “Crisis,” and Watch What Happens

Put “crisis” next to “affordability,” and you’ve got something powerful. Crisis language demands immediate action, makes opposition look heartless, and permits emergency measures. But what if calling it a crisis actually prevents us from seeing what’s really going on?

Take housing. Politicians declare a housing affordability crisis, but they rarely mention who benefits from zoning laws that restrict building, the permit processes that take 18 months, the environmental reviews that add years to every project, or the fees and requirements that add 20–30% to every new home. Understanding these beneficiaries reveals the real barriers to affordable housing.

These aren’t mysterious market forces. They’re deliberate rules that benefit particular groups: homeowners whose property values rise when new building gets blocked, industries that use regulations to keep out competition.

But call it an “affordability crisis,” and suddenly it sounds as though markets failed and we need subsidies or rent control. The rules that made things expensive in the first place?

What if we asked different questions? Instead of declaring an “affordability crisis,” ask, “Why does building a home require 247 permits?” Which regulations actually improve safety, and which add cost? What’s stopping people from building housing that others want to buy?

These questions have real answers. They point to actual laws and concrete choices. They suggest fixes: Drop unnecessary permits, speed up approvals, remove building restrictions, and cut mandates that help producers but hurt consumers.

But these questions require looking at the actual reasons things cost so much, even when those reasons are politically protected and challenging to change. Recognizing the complexity helps us avoid oversimplified solutions and promotes honest debate.

Progressive Politics destroyed the Middle Class. On purpose. We have a culture of consumption which started in the post-WWII era of abundance but which really jacked up in the Social Media era of Envy. People want a lot of stuff. And at the same time, the government was creating laws and regulations which made prosperity harder to come by. And we kept voting for that. Now the Middle Class is hollowed out, the poor people expect to live like rich people, and the rich people see most everyone as just beneath their concern.

I don’t think it “just happened”. I think the communists have been working on this project for about 80 years.

"Instead of declaring an “affordability crisis,” ask, “Why does building a home require 247 permits?"

Absolutely. This has long been a pet peeve of mine. All the "code" requirements are asinine.

Things like having the hot water limited to 130 degrees. That is fine, but some people who still possess half a brain will test water before putting their skin into it. Why the hell should government mandate that? Just as an example.

Someone buying a house should be able to have an inspector come in and document things in the house that do not meet standards suggested by some consumer group, and the buyer can decide what price they are willing to pay, if they want to pay at all.

It is like cars. You can barely buy a new car under $30K that is worth anything, and they all have seatbelts, airbags, collision avoidance, blind spot notifications, etc. etc. etc.

Sure, seatbelts and airbags are fine with me. But all the other stuff is BS.

People treat these things like they have no cost attached to them. We wonder why healthcare is so expensive, one of the things I had to do was configure the IT systems I was responsible for to accommodate all the "genders". It wasn't free. People like me had to plan it, get the systems configured, test it, develop work flows for people to use those fields correctly.

What a bunch of horse crap.

But because people didn't see it, they assumed it was no big deal, and...it was "free".

An inspector is supposed to come in an inspect a house for a potential buyer. If they have a list of things that some consumer organization gives them that “used to be code” and someone hires that inspector because the issue of things being to code is important to them, the inspector has a list of things to review.

Let’s say Water temp, toilet requirements, wiring criteria, you name it, that used to be code in a region but are no longer, then they can have that list, go down it, and check things off that a buyer knows are not up to what code used to be.

I know that might impinge on the home inspection scam, where the inspectors might actually have to perform inspections and all that instead of stamping the form and collecting their money.

Consumers didn’t ask for any of those things. We can all agree seatbelts and airbags are desirable especially if we have ever been in an accident.

Things like collision avoidance and blind spot notifications were not asked for by consumers if I understand you correctly, they were requested by insurance via regulatory capture mechanisms.

I am sick to death of all this nanny-state crap. Roads are indeed crowded, but people still have to drive their cars instead of peering at their cell phones.

It is a Leftist thing, this “risk-avoidance” where nobody should be injured at any time, anywhere. It is bad enough that they have regulated things to the point playgrounds have to have foam cushioning under swings or monkey bars (if they even allow monkey bars anymore) but bringing this up into building codes and car features is just stupid.

As I said, there are costs associated with this, and WE have to pay them whether it is a good idea or not, or whether we WANT them or not.

This has got to stop. It stinks of nanny-state-ism.

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.