“Americans ranked housing as their top financial worry in a Gallup survey last May. It’s only gotten worse. January home sales were down 5% from last year’s dismal numbers. Record numbers of first-time buyers are stuck on the sidelines as housing affordability stands at the lowest level ever recorded, while one in three Americans now spend over 30% of their income on mortgage or rent,” reports Real Clear Investigations:
The housing crisis is…a global phenomenon that hits the middle and working classes the hardest. Studies of the Canadian, British, European, and East Asian markets have also found that housing prices have risen far faster than household incomes and inflation….“housing has been the main driver of rising middle-class expenditure.” In prosperous and communitarian Switzerland, Zurich studios sell for well over $1 million, and small houses even more, making downpayments unaffordable to affluent people…
Underlying the plight of home buyers worldwide is a sometimes overlooked but profound influence – the spread of restrictive land-use regulations….as renting grows twice as quickly as buying, this trend poses a threat to Western democracy by deepening economic inequality, depressing demographic vitality, and undermining the upward mobility that has driven Western progress for the past century…
the principal cause for housing shortages and rising prices stems from the failure to build enough new housing units, particularly the single-family homes consumers most desire. Homebuilders built 1 million fewer homes (including rental units) in 2024 than in 1972, when there were 130 million fewer Americans. One estimate puts the U.S. housing market shortage at an estimated 4.5 million homes…
The rapid inflation of housing costs stems primarily from ever more constricting land-use regulations. Inflated prices are particularly rife in countries and states with strict regulations like California, where high-income households now utterly dominate the housing market, and more than a third of all real estate transactions in recent years topped $1 million.
At the crux of the problem is a series of housing policies referred to as “urban containment.” First implemented in Britain at the end of the Second World War, urban containment policies typically seek to manage growth by imposing boundaries or greenbelts around urban areas, outside of which new development is either prohibited or severely limited.
More at this link.
Building codes also drive up housing costs, by encouraging inefficient construction methods. In most industries, productivity has risen enormously since 1947. But not in construction, where productivity has not increased at all over the last 75 years. As Market Watch noted in 2017,”While construction has appeared stuck in a time warp, other sectors have transformed themselves. Consider that in the United States between 1947 and 2010, agriculture achieved cumulative real growth in its productivity of 1,510% and manufacturing 760%…U.S. construction-sector productivity is lower today than it was in 1968.”
High-cost, low-productivity methods are promoted by federal housing regulations and subsidies:
construction productivity in 2020 was 40% lower than in 1970, even though productivity in other sectors of the economy more than doubled during that time. While local regulatory policy is unquestionably a factor in this decline, restrictions on the methods of housing production also affect the supply of affordable housing. Prefabricated factory-built housing costs about one-third as much as traditional “stick-built housing,” but it constitutes just 10% of new single-family home construction today. In the 1970s, it was 60%. That dramatic decline is thanks to monopolistic government policies, from mortgage subsidies to federal safety standards, that irrationally favor stick-built methods over factory-built. To make more housing available to more Americans at lower prices, the federal government must get out of the way and allow housing construction to modernize the same way other sectors of the economy have.
Federal policies promote “‘stick-built housing,’ when buildings are constructed on-site by traditional construction methods. This method requires highly skilled, frequently unionized workers to produce homes on-site. Pre-fabricated factory-built housing, by contrast, costs about 1/3 as much per square foot”:
the prevalence of stick-built housing is a function of monopolistic behavior by construction companies and government policy, particularly the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This happened in a couple of steps.
First, HUD developed Section 235 in 1968, a program that substantially subsidized mortgages on stick-built but not factory-built homes. Given the relative inefficiency of stick-built production, this program effectively subsidized a low-productivity technology at the cost of other, more efficient production methods.
Second, HUD and NAHB pushed the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 [regulating the features of factory-built homes] through Congress.
