Do you want to know how to fix the housing crisis in America? Is rent control a good idea? How helpful are rental assistance programs?
In his book Evicted, sociologist Matthew Desmond lays out three ways that the United States government could fix the housing crisis. In fact, some federal programs already exist and just need to be expanded.
Here are Desmond’s suggestions from Evicted.
The Eviction Epidemic Can Be Cured
Having explained the causes and effects of widespread evictions, Desmond concludes by laying out how to fix the housing crisis so that every US citizen can (and should) have a stable home. In fact, he says, simply expanding federal programs that already exist would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.
Here are a few of Desmond’s suggestions:
1. Expand housing voucher programs and public housing. Rental assistance programs are the single most effective anti-poverty measure in the US today. Whether the government owns the property (public housing) or provides vouchers that cover part of a tenant’s rent to another landlord, these programs allow people to spend less than a third of their income on housing, freeing up the rest for food, medicine, and other necessities. However, these programs aren’t funded well enough to help everyone who needs them.
2. Establish rent controls. Part of the reason why existing voucher programs don’t help as many people as they could is that landlords overcharge voucher holders on rent, knowing that the government will pay the bill for them. Therefore, an expanded voucher program without corresponding rent controls would be very inefficient—in essence, it would mean using taxpayer money to boost landlords’ profits.
(Shortform note: Rent control is a controversial topic with arguments both in favor of and against it. Desmond has presented the central argument in favor of stricter rent controls: Such regulations would allow many more people to afford decent, stable housing for themselves and their families. The main argument against rent control is that it would reduce the number of rentals on the market, since many landlords would choose to sell off their properties or convert them into commercial spaces rather than continue renting under laws that limit their profits.)
3. Provide public funding for tenants in eviction court. Remember that a large part of why low-income renters allow themselves to be exploited is that they simply can’t afford to go to court and fight back. Federal funds to make up for missed work, childcare, and legal fees would help ensure that tenants can defend themselves against predatory landlords.
Finally, Desmond anticipates the argument that these programs would cost far too much to be feasible. He says that the net cost will probably be far lower than many people think because such programs will greatly reduce costs associated with homelessness, illness, and other effects of poverty.
Desmond adds that the federal government already spends far more than would be needed for a universal housing program but does so in the form of tax benefits for people who already have personal wealth and their own homes. Therefore, he says that the US government could solve the eviction and homelessness crises fairly easily; it just requires using federal funds to help the people who need it most.
| The Multiplier Effect vs. Trickle-Down Economics Desmond believes that the net cost of expanding welfare programs will be lower than people fear, but he may be understating his case: Such programs could actually boost the economy rather than harming it. Many economists argue that giving the poorest people more resources creates a multiplier effect: When people spend the extra money they receive from the government, businesses experience increased demand for their products and services. As a result, they hire more employees and increase production to meet this rising demand. This, in turn, boosts household income and encourages even more consumer spending. The cycle continues, creating a ripple effect throughout the economy that increases output, employment, and economic growth. Desmond’s proposals would create this multiplier effect, either by directly putting more money into the hands of low-income people or by helping them with expenses, thereby freeing up more money for them to spend at businesses. By contrast, giving tax breaks and other benefits to people who are already wealthy—commonly called “trickle-down economics”—has repeatedly failed to produce the economic gains its proponents have promised. Studies show that instead of creating new and better paying jobs, trickle-down economics only helps the wealthy to amass more wealth. |
