Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Do high housing costs threaten the American dream?

Houses increasing in price
Dougal Waters/Getty Images

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

Homeownership has long been a cornerstone of the American dream. I have 12 nieces and nephews, and as they reach young adulthood and try to establish their careers, they are daunted by the soaring cost of homeownership in a way their parents and grandparents never were.

In 1960, approximately 68 out of every 100 Americans could afford to buy a home, but now only 43 out of 100 can. The ratio of home prices to income has reached all-time highs in 78 of the nation’s 100 largest markets, with significant racial disparities.

Rents also have crept up, with the share of middle-income renters who are “cost-burdened” rising sharply from under 40 percent of households in 2010 to over 60 percent today. The lack of affordable housing also has contributed to rising homelessness.


The housing crisis is impacting every state, and neither Republicans or Democrats have managed to solve it. No matter who has been president, whether George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump or Joe Biden, the cost of housing has continued to rise faster than people’s incomes.

What’s the cause of high housing prices? While the experts bicker, most agree on the roots of the problem:

  • A housing shortage. Following the 2008 Great Recession, when housing markets collapsed, fewer homes were built in the 10 years ending in 2018 than in any decade since the 1960s, leading to a housing shortage. Among major countries, only in the United States has the housing stock grown more slowly than the population between 1995 and 2020. Dramatic increases in construction costs, including land, labor and materials, have been a factor.
  • Tight regulatory restrictions in many parts of the country, much of it arising from NIMBY opposition to increasing housing density and the building of lower-income homes, with fears that such growth might lead to traffic congestion, higher crime and lower home values.
  • High mortgage rates, causing homeowners to sit tight rather than selling and losing their low mortgage rate, contributing to a tight market.
  • The growth of “ Zoom towns,” a pun on 19th-century boom towns that sprang up around gold and oil discoveries, but now it’s high-salaried techies working over Zoom, making the rural areas less affordable.
  • Housing speculators. Iin the past few years, with mortgage rates at historic lows, housing prices climbed to new frothy highs after rebounding from the home mortgage collapse of 2008-2009, followed by the pandemic. International investors and large corporate housing companies have bid prices up.

Starting two years ago, mortgage rates doubled, which cooled the housing market, but high prices linger. Private housing developers are still building but mainly for the wealthy, while governments focus on building low-income housing. That leaves no housing pipeline to respond to the needs of middle-class working families.

Indeed, the bipartisan consensus for developing so-called affordable housing has been to rely on “market rate housing” built by for-profit developers. But market rate housing is simply not affordable to most people. That’s because the flatlining of wages for the last three decades amidst growing inequality means the average person cannot afford what the developers are willing to build. And affordable housing set-asides have been too meager to make up the difference.

So what housing policy would help? That’s a tough question. While America’s housing strategy is broken, other countries are trying an innovative solution known as “social housing.” Rather than U.S.-style public housing, which is reserved for the poor, social housing is open to a range of incomes.

In Vienna, Austria, a city of two million people, 25 percent of the housing stock is owned and managed by private — but nonprofit — housing developers. The developers receive low-interest loans and extended repayment periods (50 years), often to build on public land, which reduces construction costs. Residents pay no more than 25 percent of income for rent. Sometimes the developer is a housing co-operative or other nonprofit. I visited one social housing development built by a labor union.

Other countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan and Uruguay also guide property markets with a public/private mix of social housing policies. Social housing recognizes that overreliance on the for-profit housing market often distorts prices, especially when housing demand is overheated like in recent years. If the proportion of social housing is high enough, it creates a parallel nonprofit market that acts as a brake on the free market forces that escalate mortgages, rents and speculation.

The U.S. in recent years has begun experimenting with social housing in places like Seattle and Montgomery County, Md. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has co-authored a federal bill that seeks to make unused government buildings available for efforts like social housing. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has introduced legislation to fund nonprofit housing development and to convert commercial properties into affordable housing.

But the United States has a lot of catching up to do. Comedian George Carlin once said, “It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.” To escape the bad dream of today’s housing crisis, the U.S. badly needs new thinking, public/private innovation and long-term investment.


Read More

Silver sign of Department of Justice on a classical concrete wall with plants as foreground.
Silver sign of Department of Justice on a classical concrete wall with plants as foreground.
Getty Images, Dragon Claws

The Ku Klux Klan Returns to Power

Last month, the Department of Justice initiated a baseless lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This retributive action, like the previous frivolous actions brought against other individuals and organizations who defend the rule of law and judicial administration, is not only meritless, but is primarily intended to harass, intimidate, and render dysfunctional an organization that is interfering with the administration’s goal of fomenting hate and perpetuating its ethnic cleansing agenda of America.

Letitia James, James Comey, Mark Kelly, Jerome Powell, Minnesota Democrats, protesters at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, former military intelligence community lawmakers, John Bolton, Adam Schiff, John Brennan, Congressional Representative Lamonica McIver, Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka, and fifteen law firms have been previous targets of such fabricated claims. The Department of Justice (DOJ), which has posted the worst success rate in the country's history, has been plagued by significant corruption and politicization, undermining its independence and integrity. It has shut down departments previously focused on enforcing the civil rights laws, national security, corruption, ethics, money laundering, and terrorism in order to focus on deportations of non-criminals, dismantling civil rights, and harassing the administration’s enemies. There have been forced resignations of prosecutors who resisted political pressure, indicating a shift towards loyalty over legal judgment. Disciplinary actions against judges and prosecutors who criticize the executive have become commonplace. Attacks on judges, even those appointed by the president, who follow the law rather than the president’s illegal policies, are routine. The DOJ's internal oversight and ethics capacity have been weakened, raising concerns about the rule of law and the Department’s abuse of justice.

Keep ReadingShow less
House Democrats and Republicans Clash over Free Speech in Higher Education

Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, addresses the chamber in front of a portrait of George Miller.

(Matthew Junkroski / MEDILL)

House Democrats and Republicans Clash over Free Speech in Higher Education

WASHINGTON — Witnesses and representatives sat in silence as Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, spoke about how universities should strive for intellectual diversity and introduce controversial ideas. Rep. Alma S. Adams, D-N.C., agreed with his rhetoric, but went on to criticize her Republican colleagues for standing in the way of free expression.

“Unfortunately, what we often see, especially in hearings like this, is not a good faith effort to strike that balance, but a selective narrative,” Adams said. “My colleagues on the other side of the aisle frequently claim that there’s a free speech crisis on college campuses, arguing that universities lack viewpoint diversity and silence certain perspectives.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Republican Attacks on Citizen Ballot Measures Undermine Democracy

Election workers process ballots at the Orange County Registrar of Voters one week after Election Day on November 12, 2024 in Santa Ana, California.

Getty Images, Mario Tama

Republican Attacks on Citizen Ballot Measures Undermine Democracy

In October 2020, Utah’s Republican Senator Mike Lee delivered a startling but revealing civics lesson in the aftermath of that year’s vice-presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence. He tweeted, The United States is “not a democracy.”

“The word ‘democracy,’’’ Lee wrote, “appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic….Democracy isn’t the objective….” The senator said that the object of the Constitution was to promote “liberty, peace, and prospefity (sic).”

Keep ReadingShow less
Key Senate panel advances Trump’s pick for Fed chair

Kevin Warsh testified in a Senate Banking Committee confirmation hearing for Fed chair last week.

Photo provided

Key Senate panel advances Trump’s pick for Fed chair

WASHINGTON – The Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday voted 13 to 11 to advance Kevin Warsh’s nomination as Federal Reserve chairman despite Democrats’ concerns that he would not be independent from President Donald Trump.

The banking committee’s vote fell along party lines, with all 13 Republicans voting in favor of the nomination and all 11 Democrats voting against it. Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a press release that it was the first time a vote on a Fed chair nominee was entirely partisan.

Keep ReadingShow less