View source for Archive:000/Does expensive housing indirectly help the poor

Does expensive housing indirectly help the poor?

===No, if the new housing is expensive to ''build''.===
Materials & labor are both in limited supply. Expensive construction puts more strain on natural resources, leaving less for the poor.

Oldschool economists may say otherwise, but this is because they downplay ecological limits, and/or exaggerate the rate at which technological progress can improve {{alt|energy|labor|materials}} efficiency of construction.

===No, if low-end housing is demolished to make room for high-end housing.===
In most of such cases, the housing supply isn't even increased!

===Yes, if a housing shortage is the underlying reason for high ''prices''.===
In some regions, [[housing]] has become a game of "musical chairs", where there simply aren't enough homes for all the people who want to live there. [[NIMBY]] lobbyists often use [[zoning]] to keep people out of the neighborhood, by preventing the creation of homes that people need. In such a situation, housing always goes to the highest bidder.

For housing prices to go down, there needs to be more homes, such as by:
* New construction (but housing prices can only go so low if the construction is expensive)
* [[Subdividing]] existing units (i.e. some houses become duplexes; some multi-bedroom apartments become [[single-person housing|studio apartments]])
* Forcing investors to not hold so many houses vacant.
At first, the new housing units won't be much cheaper. But don't let this be a reason to oppose the movement (no matter how tempting that may be). Keep it going until there's enough [[housing]] for ''everyone'', not just the rich.

==See also==
* [[Affordable housing]]
* [[Homelessness]] - Vacant homes outnumber homeless people in the USA. That being said, there is still a shortage of [[single-person housing]].