by Robert Fireovid
Unaffordable housing is driven by two forces – price inflation and immigration. There’s an increasingly limited supply of affordable energy, an increasingly limited supply of affordable materials (especially non-renewable materials), and a limited supply of affordable land, too. As Will Rogers said, “They ain’t makin’ any more of the stuff [land].” We live in a finite physical world, and with large and ever-increasing populations (driven by mass immigration), we’re reaching the limits of our resources, especially the non-renewable ones.
When demand exceeds supply, prices must increase until demand decreases (because the price is unaffordable) so that supply and demand are once again in balance. Our current unaffordable housing problem is driven by the limited supply of land, the limited supply of resources needed to build houses, and increasing demand driven by immigration.
The bottom line is that if we want housing to be affordable, wages must increase so that people can purchase ever more expensive houses made from scarce resources.
In Japan, where the total population has been decreasing, the economic activity, as measured by GDP, hasn’t changed because the higher wages (resulting from higher demand for labor) attract more native-born citizens into the labor market.
In contrast, our government is importing poverty by encouraging mass immigration. Such policies depress wages to such an extent that workers can’t keep up with price inflation (caused by (1) limited supplies of goods and (2) currency devaluation resulting from the federal government printing and spending more money).
Everyone – hospitality workers, restaurant workers, teachers, nurses, farm workers, or whomever – must have enough purchasing power (aka, earned income) to afford the higher prices we’re seeing. If not, then people need to switch to employers who offer higher wages or they should go into a different line of work where the wages are higher. An alternative, I suppose, would be to stay poor and be on welfare, paid for by (1) higher taxes and (2) dollar devaluation resulting from government printing of more money.
Yes, increasing wages will further increase the price of goods and services. But if we don’t like the price on the restaurant menus, we can cook our own meals. If we don’t like the price of food, then we can grow as much food as we can ourselves. We could prioritize our spending on the essentials – food, shelter, transportation.
In addition to ending mass immigration, another action that government can take to help citizens deal with higher prices is to empower us to take better care of ourselves.
For instance, government can facilitate the expansion of consumer options for acquiring goods and services. Let public money for education follow the child so as to maximize school choice, including home schooling. Have right-to-repair laws so that equipment can be serviced by the owners, or at least by a greater diversity of repair shops. Plan for possible food shortages resulting from ever-increasing resource constraints, especially in energy and materials. Encourage preventative healthcare and healthy lifestyles (exercise, healthy diets, plenty of outdoors time, especially in nature, clean air, and clean water) so that people need minimal medical interventions and minimal levels of health insurance.
In short, expanding consumer options is about consumer freedom from monopolistic tyranny.
Speaking of healthcare, it’s the elephant in our modern room. We have very sick (mentally and physically) people and people who don’t take care of themselves. These people use an inordinate amount of healthcare resources. Right now, most of the healthcare research that our government does is designed to create more pharmaceuticals (i.e., treat people after they get sick). Instead, government-funded healthcare research should focus on identifying diet, nutritional, and environmental choices that promote wellness and avoid sickness. And then government should encourage citizens to adopt healthier choices.
Let’s acknowledge our reality and deal with what we can. Government needs to… (1) Stop deficit spending. (2) Stop mass immigration and let wages increase. (3) Empower consumer choice to avoid monopolistic tyranny.
I would much prefer living in (and would feel much safer in) a society where everyone who is not disabled is (or legally striving to become) self-reliant, self-supporting, and earning a livable income. In my mind, this is what America is about.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Housing
Another important thing is to remember how much more is now included in that housing cost: In 1900, it only needed to include a fireplace/stove, 4 walls, and a roof. Now, we are enshrouded by rivulets of copper wire, arteries of PVC, pillows of insulation, fiberoptic lines, phone lines, and a near-constant aura of wireless data. We are also pressured to believe that we need more, DESERVE more for merely existing.
A cinderblock box with a tin roof SHOULD be much cheaper than what we expect as standard these days.
The questions we should be asking are WHY we want what we do? and Do we actually need those things?
All due respect to firefighters, professional and volunteer but fire safety rules have imposed a significant addition to the price of housing. Even some single family homes are required to have sprinkler systems installed if they are deemed to be too far from the fire station. There are size and style requirements for windows as well. I dont remember ever voting for these rules or for those who have imposed them.
There is no such thing as affordable housing, go out and price building materials and what will be needed to comply with today’s standards…………………….
Yes, you can build it, but who can afford it, land, materials, tradespeople, permit cost
inspection fees……..but it can be built, it will be built on your dime ” more taxes ” as the Government loves spending your money, and they’ll build so-called affordable housing with all the amenities, that you can’t afford………………..so keep working !!
Make an illegal happy, as we only have 10 or 20 million here, so build them a house on your dime as that’s what your Government plans to do, as we are only $34T in debt thus far they can print money every day…………………………..
please//// just stay out of my house and off my land///////
The “right” to be housed at the expense of your fellow American taxpayer is limited by the right of decent, law-abiding, working taxpayers to not have their hard-earned financial resources confiscated from them by force.
Hey Rich, every three years the public service department updates residential building energy standards (RBES) and commercial building energy standards (CBES), supposed to take affect in 2023. I had asked, during the housing bill, to postpone action on the new standards for two years. The majority didn’t support that but during our legislative committee on administrative rules (LCAR) meetings, we were able to postpone action until July of this year. Home builders have stated in testimony that these new standards could increase the cost of a residential home as much is $28,000.
Here is the link to that study from last year‘s housing bill on building codes and energy standards: https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/Act-47-Building-Energy-Code-Study-Committee-Report-12-1-23B.pdf
Here are the new residential standards from the public service department: https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2024/WorkGroups/LCAR/22-P28%20-%20Vermont%20Residential%20Building%20Energy%20Standards%20(RBES)%20Amendments/W~none~22-P28%20-%20Vermont%20Residential%20Building%20Energy%20Standards%20(BES)%20Amendments~4-26-2023.pdf
The majority is always looking at legislations that will add costs to Housing: registration of contractors; energy standards; act 250 changes; ADA adaptable housing when receiving any state or federal funding etc.
Rep. Mark Higley
Lowell
This is a supply problem, take down the barriers to build or renovate, which reduces cost directly and indirectly.
Tim — exactly.
We get what we accept…or, we get what our unadulterated and enabled addictions, unchecked, get us.
We are living this way because we are looking for the lazy man’s way out of a life that is NOT simple — except in this way:
God provided everything we need to live on this planet – for free.
ANYthing else is the work of that other imagineative-less evil one whose only currency is carnal…
If we live as the Bible tells us… we are there in one swoop.
Edward Bernais and Sigmund Freud mined our psyches a little over a century ago and figured out (THE CENTURY OF MAN documentary), paid by the government to do so btw, how to sell us things we don’t want.
I want: a small natural wood (no processing at all) 16x16x16 with a wood stove, landlines, and electricity enough for 2 lamps, to charge my computer and other devices, and lots of trees around my place.
Those simple choices make me SOL for housing… and I need all that for my health.
We are a sick society MAKING OURSELVES sicker via our mindlessness, our addictions, and out of control fear manipulated from the top… mammon’s minions at work.
Housing should be kept simple and up to the housed – we should have choice as in everything else. What suits you does NOT suit me.
In a democracy, my needs get voted out as if they didn’t exist.
And so do I: legislated out of basic human rights that God gave us: food, shelter, and clothing.
What’s wrong with this world: Human stiff necked hubris and stubbornness…and great dark imaginings as if they are real.
We need to stop legislating how people should live. Period.
message to mark higley//// can the people in lowell vermont pay another twenty eight thousand dollars for a house/// no i do not think so/// it is time for the club of crooks in the state house to go home/// i am waiting for my twenty percent increase in my property taxes/// hope to see you soon and stay well///
Wow, an affordable housing discussion and scroll down the news stories you read about property tax messes and mega ( not MAGA) school budget increases. How about a discussion on “affordable taxes and fees”?