Mr. Desmond, this is a vivid, needed spotlight on the scope of the maltreatment of our citizens. But , you say “America stands alone among wealthy democracies in the depth and expanse of its poverty”,
We need more than 1 line on that.
Thus, the question is-- what do other nations do differently to prevent deep, wide poverty? You’ve given us human, concrete examples of how poverty is created here. Where are concrete examples of how it’s prevented elsewhere?
That’s the half of the story we rarely get--examples of practical, working policy to serve as role models to challenge lawmakers with. And to head off rw Gop objections to reforms.
I’m getting tired of the constant critiques that rightly lament the US’s long standing, intractable problems, but they exclude any details of why our problems don’t get so intractable in other advanced countries. Doesn’t matter if the Gop rejects these examples, with their usual excuses, and blames the victims. We need illustrations of contrasting govt policies that have been shown to work in reality.
Use individuals as illustrations in similar walks of life abroad, where a larger % of their citizens are above the poverty line. Universal health care and worker protections in laws, and fair taxes for enough govt revenue are part of the solution, which we can’t achieve. But why are they able to do it?
Explain --our unique campaign finance by the rich is a big factor holding back the US from achieving lower poverty rates typical abroad.
We need more than 1 line on that.
Thus, the question is-- what do other nations do differently to prevent deep, wide poverty? You’ve given us human, concrete examples of how poverty is created here. Where are concrete examples of how it’s prevented elsewhere?
That’s the half of the story we rarely get--examples of practical, working policy to serve as role models to challenge lawmakers with. And to head off rw Gop objections to reforms.
I’m getting tired of the constant critiques that rightly lament the US’s long standing, intractable problems, but they exclude any details of why our problems don’t get so intractable in other advanced countries. Doesn’t matter if the Gop rejects these examples, with their usual excuses, and blames the victims. We need illustrations of contrasting govt policies that have been shown to work in reality.
Use individuals as illustrations in similar walks of life abroad, where a larger % of their citizens are above the poverty line. Universal health care and worker protections in laws, and fair taxes for enough govt revenue are part of the solution, which we can’t achieve. But why are they able to do it?
Explain --our unique campaign finance by the rich is a big factor holding back the US from achieving lower poverty rates typical abroad.
65
How can you possibly suggest that wealth is not always given to those who are deserving of special factor from God, while poverty must likewise be God's own decision. Right? Isn't that what Americans believe?
26
I wonder if rent control and a $15.hr minimum wage would help?
20
Thank you for writing & publishing this important piece.
No more blaming poverty on the poor.
We can start by cutting orders of useless F-35's until at least everyone gets to in not be evicted from their trailers.
No more blaming poverty on the poor.
We can start by cutting orders of useless F-35's until at least everyone gets to in not be evicted from their trailers.
45
A studio in San Jose rents for between 2000 and 2500 a month. It's the same way all over the Bay Area and I suspect LA too.
13
This problem is made worse by the Not In My BackYard attitude that prevails in many towns in suburban urban areas across America today. I live on the California Coast near San Francisco, a bedroom community to Silicon Valley. My community has three mobile home neighborhoods. The rents and mobile home prices here are outrageous when you consider the often dilapidated mobile homes laced in tightly with new more welcoming ones.
A coalition of NIMYs, some of whom fancy themselves environmentalists, have opposed almost every effort to build affordable housing or allow new mobile home parks because they don’t want their community to change now that they are part of it.
Nothing creates price drops and competitive pricing like capacity in the marketplace, so another solution to this problem is to make affordable housing more abundant and mobile home communities more frequent and available. That will not happen until people who "have it” realize that everyone’s best interests must include giving those who “don’t have it” a real chance of getting it. That means housing must be seen as important as eating, i.e., housing vouchers that cover everyone who needs one, and allowing more development to let the market competition create real competition in the housing markets, i.e., opposing selfish NIMBYism. Both are needed.
A coalition of NIMYs, some of whom fancy themselves environmentalists, have opposed almost every effort to build affordable housing or allow new mobile home parks because they don’t want their community to change now that they are part of it.
Nothing creates price drops and competitive pricing like capacity in the marketplace, so another solution to this problem is to make affordable housing more abundant and mobile home communities more frequent and available. That will not happen until people who "have it” realize that everyone’s best interests must include giving those who “don’t have it” a real chance of getting it. That means housing must be seen as important as eating, i.e., housing vouchers that cover everyone who needs one, and allowing more development to let the market competition create real competition in the housing markets, i.e., opposing selfish NIMBYism. Both are needed.
21
I'm skeptical of vouchers. Isn't that just free money to the landlords, who will then just charge *slightly* less than they would anyhow, raking in the free money? Seems to me the rents will just go higher (like student loans).
Maybe get rid of the graft and corruption somewhere else ... like our political system ... to solve the problem. Throwing more free money at the already wealthy is not going to do it.
Maybe get rid of the graft and corruption somewhere else ... like our political system ... to solve the problem. Throwing more free money at the already wealthy is not going to do it.
22
Bring back some form of Rent Control.
27
Years ago, I stopped in a grocery store in a poor Houston neighborhood to pick up some milk. I was stunned at the price - higher than the city's most exclusive gourmet store just a half mile away. I spot checked a few other items and found all the prices exorbitant. For the first time I understood that being poor is a double whammy - you're not only paid less for your work, you also have to pay top dollar for things that you buy. If you don't have a car, you don't have much choice. If you don't much money you don't have a choice.
The free market - that's a game only rich people can play.
The free market - that's a game only rich people can play.
149
I find myself constantly wondering what has happened to this "great nation of ours." As a small business owner, and soon to be retiree, I shudder to think what my life might have been had I been born a mere 10 years later. As a "tail end" baby boomer, I so often feel like the guy who overslept and missed his ocean voyage on the Titanic. Being the child of a middle class broken family as my parent's generation awakened to the fact that there was life after an abusive marriage, I was still in my own home, and ultimately graduated college at a good state university. My first job came at the height of the 80's recession, and it paid poorly for a six day work week. Still, I had no student debt, and was driving my first new car two years later.
As a guy who was making as much as my dad at 25, I had the luxury of switching careers out of boredom. Turns out I was good with computers and soon I was making more than my father every three months. But here's what astounds me, I was nothing special. I was a mediocre student, and yet, a little ambition and a smidge above average intelligence put me on a life trajectory that was like having a rocket strapped to my behind?
Fast forward to today and I've met kids with 4.0 grade point averages from solid (if not prestigious) universities who are waiting my tables AFTER graduating. And if that's what the educated kid of today is doing, then what kind of HELL are the poor enduring?! I'll be long gone, but what happens to the future???!!!
As a guy who was making as much as my dad at 25, I had the luxury of switching careers out of boredom. Turns out I was good with computers and soon I was making more than my father every three months. But here's what astounds me, I was nothing special. I was a mediocre student, and yet, a little ambition and a smidge above average intelligence put me on a life trajectory that was like having a rocket strapped to my behind?
Fast forward to today and I've met kids with 4.0 grade point averages from solid (if not prestigious) universities who are waiting my tables AFTER graduating. And if that's what the educated kid of today is doing, then what kind of HELL are the poor enduring?! I'll be long gone, but what happens to the future???!!!
146
On the other hand...
In most states, rental and eviction laws are tilted hard in the favor of tenants. You find someone who knows how to work the system, and they can bring a small landlord to the brink of financial ruin. I know, because it's happening to me. I own one rental property which I depend on to provide my retirement stake. I got a guy who passed the background check because said background check only went back seven years, which meant that it did not pick up his domestic assault conviction in 2007 that landed him in jail for a year. He knows how much leeway the law alllows, and he's taking all of it.
The courts in the area only hear these cases twice a month, so it was two weeks before I got a court date. The judge approved the eviction, but the sheriff takes his sweet time doing these, because, well, who wants to evict a potential voter?
Add to this the leniency I showed, engaging the tenant in several discussions to bring his rent up to date, and the guy's going to end up sponging off me for two months, rent free. And let's not get into the damage he's done....
The article makes it sound like renters are getting pushed around, but that's not always the case. One renter has set my retirement plans back a half decade.
In most states, rental and eviction laws are tilted hard in the favor of tenants. You find someone who knows how to work the system, and they can bring a small landlord to the brink of financial ruin. I know, because it's happening to me. I own one rental property which I depend on to provide my retirement stake. I got a guy who passed the background check because said background check only went back seven years, which meant that it did not pick up his domestic assault conviction in 2007 that landed him in jail for a year. He knows how much leeway the law alllows, and he's taking all of it.
The courts in the area only hear these cases twice a month, so it was two weeks before I got a court date. The judge approved the eviction, but the sheriff takes his sweet time doing these, because, well, who wants to evict a potential voter?
Add to this the leniency I showed, engaging the tenant in several discussions to bring his rent up to date, and the guy's going to end up sponging off me for two months, rent free. And let's not get into the damage he's done....
The article makes it sound like renters are getting pushed around, but that's not always the case. One renter has set my retirement plans back a half decade.
36
supply and demand? concerning food and shelter the S&D coefficients are not relative .China has restricted family growth in an attempt to curb the spiraling demands of over population..but the rest of the planet has not..how can food and shelter be left to free market economics with a world population level increasing daily..obviously the governments need to subsidize, which is expensive and counter productive..subsidize the poor and then poverty continues to grow.. there is no quick fix..it is a long term control of population without war and destruction..i know for a fact that poverty is a result of governments subsidizing the poor.
6
An excellent article. Poor people need a political party to represent their interests. Of course, that would be socialism.
62
The damned realtors and developers, who sold the property made the big money. The bankers took the rest. Besides bankers, who else do you suppose contributes broadly to politician' election campaigns? Answer realtors and developers.
24
You forgot lotteries in your list of things meant to get money out of the poor.
I think cities need to pursue building or subsidizing the building of affordable housing (including 1 bedroom and studios) as a long term solution instead of subsidizing slum lords indefinitely.
I think cities need to pursue building or subsidizing the building of affordable housing (including 1 bedroom and studios) as a long term solution instead of subsidizing slum lords indefinitely.
18
I'm in the middle of reading your book, Mr. Desmond, and I'm very impressed. The writing is clear, the stories wrenching, and as someone with inside knowledge of the eviction economy (for three years I was a Super Neighborhood President in a part of Houston with too many awful slum apartment and condo complexes, as well as really great single family neighborhoods), I am extremely grateful that someone has finally shed light on how life works in these places. As a Houston architecture professor put it, these are "the new projects." They're privately owned, but no less bleak than those old public housing blocks.
.
One observation of my own. Your book doesn't really go into it, but it stands to reason that a big part of what drives kids to gangs is the insecurity that comes from a lack of stable housing. The gang is like family. They'll look out for you when your mother won't. They'll buy you birthday gifts (even if the gifts are drugs). If your mom was evicted, you can crash on a fellow gangster's floor. (Just don't cross them) It's a sort of Coping mechanism. Your rent subsidies could be a huge tool against gang recruitment, too
.
I'd also like to ask a question: would the kind of rent subsidies you propose actually address the issue of code violations, safety and sanitation in affordable housing? It's a problem that figures repeatedly in your book, and one I struggled with in my old neighborhood. I'm not seeing how universal rent subsidies would solve it.
.
One observation of my own. Your book doesn't really go into it, but it stands to reason that a big part of what drives kids to gangs is the insecurity that comes from a lack of stable housing. The gang is like family. They'll look out for you when your mother won't. They'll buy you birthday gifts (even if the gifts are drugs). If your mom was evicted, you can crash on a fellow gangster's floor. (Just don't cross them) It's a sort of Coping mechanism. Your rent subsidies could be a huge tool against gang recruitment, too
.
I'd also like to ask a question: would the kind of rent subsidies you propose actually address the issue of code violations, safety and sanitation in affordable housing? It's a problem that figures repeatedly in your book, and one I struggled with in my old neighborhood. I'm not seeing how universal rent subsidies would solve it.
34
Government caused it by restricting and taxing low income housing, causing a shortage of of it.
If there is big profits in it, someone would like to build some low income housing in that area giving renters more choices and lowering rents due to competition. Renters are not stupid. They will chose the better landlord and the cheaper rent.
But if you want to build LIH, I bet there is so many zoning laws and homeowner groups against it your head will spin.
If there is big profits in it, someone would like to build some low income housing in that area giving renters more choices and lowering rents due to competition. Renters are not stupid. They will chose the better landlord and the cheaper rent.
But if you want to build LIH, I bet there is so many zoning laws and homeowner groups against it your head will spin.
9
Aren't housing subsidies just subsidizing the Walmart type employers? You can go to any of these low wage companies and find the Human Resource bulletin boards full of postings on medicaid, housing assistance, food stamps and of public transportation. They use these programs as an offset to their pathetic wages. Any assistance is really just putting money into the pockets of the capitalists. If you want to improve anything in this country, you have to take the fight there first. Stop subsidizing capitalists by taxing its workforce.
64
There are many ways to fix the housing problem. However, none of these are possible because the middle and upper classes mostly own and they want housing prices to rise. That said, this was an excellent essay.
11
Rent is earned through work or, in hard times and old age, through savings from past work, friendships, and neighbors who care.
Get rid of entitlements like mortgage interest tax deductions, corporate interest tax deductions, and housing vouchers. Bailing out people who take out payday loans, NINA mortgages, and gambling debts from trips to Vegas charged to their credit cards makes no sense.
Seems like nobody is responsible for what they did but we are all responsible for what somebody else did, like getting drunk, falling asleep outside, getting frostbite, and having your legs amputated.
Get rid of entitlements like mortgage interest tax deductions, corporate interest tax deductions, and housing vouchers. Bailing out people who take out payday loans, NINA mortgages, and gambling debts from trips to Vegas charged to their credit cards makes no sense.
Seems like nobody is responsible for what they did but we are all responsible for what somebody else did, like getting drunk, falling asleep outside, getting frostbite, and having your legs amputated.
1
Solutions to the problem of rent exploitation were presented by Henry George in the 19th century. He was lauded, then forgotten. Someday we will wake up.
4
The problem with a 'voucher program' is that hardly anyone is willing to rent to someone with a govt. 'voucher'. Take Sect. 8 for example, most owners of properties don't want to touch them. It is supposedly illegal to discriminate but yeah try and enforce that one. Lots of people also don't want to report their 'under the table' rental incomes or adhere to building codes and little things like proper heat or hot water.
BTW, Sect. 8 has about a ten year wait list in most states.
They are not handed out like sticks of gum. And by the time many get to the top of the list they've died or are not to be found at their previous addresses.
As so many millions of Americans are struggling with this housing crisis from coast to coast, why is it we keep importing millions each year to our country?
I tell people that if they need housing to apply from overseas as a refugee,
for they may get faster results.
Bottom line is that most people could care less about the less fortunate in our society today. That's the way it truly and sadly is in America.
"Poor Americans are urged to hate themselves."-Kurt Vonnegut
BTW, Sect. 8 has about a ten year wait list in most states.
They are not handed out like sticks of gum. And by the time many get to the top of the list they've died or are not to be found at their previous addresses.
As so many millions of Americans are struggling with this housing crisis from coast to coast, why is it we keep importing millions each year to our country?
I tell people that if they need housing to apply from overseas as a refugee,
for they may get faster results.
Bottom line is that most people could care less about the less fortunate in our society today. That's the way it truly and sadly is in America.
"Poor Americans are urged to hate themselves."-Kurt Vonnegut
24
S.S was suppose to help seniors and disabled to stay out of poverty. It hasn't kept up with ever rising rent and food prices. What was a promising career(s) has crashed for so many friends who have served in the non-profit sector. The middle class is dying in the streets. The working class is on pantry and food stamps. The US government is failing it's own people.
39
There's nothing inherently immoral about wealth. But wealth based on exploiting the poor, the elderly, the vulnerable, or anyone else is loathsome.
39
I am going to email this article to my senators and representative and hope that they care enough to focus on being making significant changes in our system.
14
The rich stick together, fiercely protecting each other's interests. The poor, too often, fight among themselves for the crumbs. Not until the poor make the lives of the rich unbearable will things truly change.
31
Restrictive zoning limits the number of trailer parks and that supply and demand makes rent in trailer parks far more expensive than it should be.
Social justice is lacking when it comes to zoning.
Social justice is lacking when it comes to zoning.
16
Thank you, Matthew, for shining a light on a small part of the very large and very dark underbelly of our society. Capitalism will extract profits everywhere it can, and of course, it incentivizies some people to do the extraction from the poor and powerless in ways that are on the other side of the law. The risk to reward is very much in their favor.
While I very much support the aims of your proposal, I'm not sure I want to line the pockets of sleazy landlords with additional voucher income. I'd rather trust a government housing authority or collection of housing non-profit organizations to run housing units for the program. It's a complex problem and I'm sure there are no easy answers. But thank you for trying to help move the needle. This country badly needs to start taking a clear-eyed look at itself and solving some problems for the poor and the middle class.
While I very much support the aims of your proposal, I'm not sure I want to line the pockets of sleazy landlords with additional voucher income. I'd rather trust a government housing authority or collection of housing non-profit organizations to run housing units for the program. It's a complex problem and I'm sure there are no easy answers. But thank you for trying to help move the needle. This country badly needs to start taking a clear-eyed look at itself and solving some problems for the poor and the middle class.
45
Here in SF Bay Area, in the East Bay, HUD just lowered the amount it will allow and pay for housing subsidies even though the Bay Area is caught up in rabid gentrification that has seen the steepest rises in rent in Bay Area history. How the heck did HUD rationalize that rents in the East Bay are lowering so they could lower the voucher payment standards?
As the article state, more vouchers would ultimately save tax dollars, eliminating the expensive challenge of homelessness, among other social problems that would also be reduced.
Here in the East Bay, my local housing authority gives repeated extensions to voucher holders who are unable to find any landlords willing to accept the voucher rental payment standard because they can, and do, charge much, much more for their rentals. When people with vouchers can't secure any housing, how the heck can HUD rationalize lowering the standards even lower?
The author of this article is, tragically, absolutely right. Poverty is a choice and it is mostly made by greedy, predatory citizens who don't care if others suffer as long as they have theirs.
As the article state, more vouchers would ultimately save tax dollars, eliminating the expensive challenge of homelessness, among other social problems that would also be reduced.
Here in the East Bay, my local housing authority gives repeated extensions to voucher holders who are unable to find any landlords willing to accept the voucher rental payment standard because they can, and do, charge much, much more for their rentals. When people with vouchers can't secure any housing, how the heck can HUD rationalize lowering the standards even lower?
The author of this article is, tragically, absolutely right. Poverty is a choice and it is mostly made by greedy, predatory citizens who don't care if others suffer as long as they have theirs.
10
"Expanding our current housing voucher program to cover all low-income families.........."
I agree that we need to provide relief to the millions of people being bled dry by the necessity of maintaining a place to live.
But do we really want to help them by subsidizing real estate speculators?
Vouchers would help support the prices of an already inflated real estate market.
Would it be more cost-efficient to engineer a cap to real estate profiteering, especially in those areas that offer a place for poor people to live?
And would it help to create a well-paid cadre of personnel to manage such places?
Is that socialism, or is it just plan cost-effective business to keep Americans moving forward?
I agree that we need to provide relief to the millions of people being bled dry by the necessity of maintaining a place to live.
But do we really want to help them by subsidizing real estate speculators?
Vouchers would help support the prices of an already inflated real estate market.
Would it be more cost-efficient to engineer a cap to real estate profiteering, especially in those areas that offer a place for poor people to live?
And would it help to create a well-paid cadre of personnel to manage such places?
Is that socialism, or is it just plan cost-effective business to keep Americans moving forward?
6
A landlord that rents to the poor, is apparently at least decently liked, lends money for funerals, and has bailed tenants out of jail is held out as an example of what's wrong? The only crime I see listed is earning a profit, but that was apparently after 9 years of paying off mortgage debt.
It's fine to demand public housing, or an end to exploitative lending practices; I'm all for it. But acting like business owners are villains for earning money is silly. One wonders how the poor will buy anything if society deems it immoral to run a business catering to them.
It's fine to demand public housing, or an end to exploitative lending practices; I'm all for it. But acting like business owners are villains for earning money is silly. One wonders how the poor will buy anything if society deems it immoral to run a business catering to them.
8
Poverty is exploitation.
Low wages are exploitation.
A minimum income of 45000 dollars coupled with price controls would be the most reasonable ways to stimulate our economy.
Low wages are exploitation.
A minimum income of 45000 dollars coupled with price controls would be the most reasonable ways to stimulate our economy.
13
The usual "blame the victim" comments are here, but after reading Mr Desmond's excellent book "Evicted . . " I wonder how many people stuck in the grind of poverty would use or misuse a rent subsidy. Some who are trapped in this life of desperate poverty have parents, grandparents, and/or relatives with a history of drug abuse, prison time, and abject poverty. With no role models to emulate would they responsibly allocate income? I haven't finished the book, but hope this question and ideas for solutions are included.
5
Ok, the simplest and easiest fix to the evictions would be direct payment from Social security or welfare to the landlords. When tenants would stop "borrowing from the rent money" to pay other bills, eviction would have no reason to happen. Yes that would leave renters with too little money on necessities. But is those expenses are reasonable (and not drugs, alcohol, tobacco and the like) there should be a way to subsidize those through the existing welfare system. The deep problem of rents is per capita tax build into them through the system of property taxes. It effectively causing poor to pay much higher summary income tax rate (earned or unearned).The reason for this is simple - spending are also per capita. In old Britain government once tried to institute per capita taxes. Once in almost 1000 years Tower of London fell to the storming crowds and they went ISIS on the archbishop/prime minister at the time. His head is shown to the curious visitors to this day. Probably as a lesson in tax policy....
3
Civilization only works when we all benefit from it. Conservatives ignore that fact (among many others) at their peril. When poor people decide that there's nothing left to lose they rise and Revolution happens. Sometimes civilization survives, sometimes it goes down in flames along with the gated communities.
15
If it's really true that investors demand, and get, higher returns on their investments in low-income housing than in anything else, what explains why there aren't more people investing in low-income housing to take advantage of those high returns? I'm open to hearing an explanation but it seems to be missing from this article.
11
Money is the problem: it enables greed. Unfortunately we are too stupid to devise a system of incentives that could replace money and simultaneously reduce the range of inequality. Recall that Star Trek's hypothetical future operates without money, but the hypothesis includes several wars required to re-orient humans away from greed and toward co-operation. If you think this comment is absurd, note well why many people across the entire planet are angry: inequality caused by money. There is your reason for both terrorism and the popularity of Trump (which is HUGELY ironic!).
6
An implied warranty of habitability is read into virtually all leases. If this housing is not habitable, it should not be left to scared tenants to stand up to their landlords. That is the job of local housing inspectors, who apparently need to get off their duff. Making $450,00- dollars a year off substandard housing is simply unacceptable. Reeling in slum landlords is a long-standing problem. Local communities need to do just that. Slums are bad for the tenants and for everybody else. Upgrading substandard housing is as fundamental an obligation as providing decent schools. There is no excuse for falling down on the job.
36
I live in subsidized housing because I have a disabling illness, and having spent my life working for nonprofits in human services, and the arts, my Social Security Disability Insurance does not amount to much. The way it works is that the landlord--yes, a slumlord--gets full market value for each apartment. We pay one-third of our income minus medical expenses. Generally, we residents are treated by management) because he will only hire a management company that save him money) as an inconvenience. People who complain about legitimate problems are viewed as troublemakers and fear management will look for an excuse to evict them if they don't keep their mouths shut. It's a good deal for the landlord because he gets full market value and never has to advertise because there is always a waiting list. Meantime he can cut costs to the bone because what can the residents do? It's not like we can afford lawyers. This is a building strictly for people who are disabled and the elderly, so please no responses complaining about people too lazy to work.
17
Has the author never heard of supply and demand? Rents rose in Williston, ND because demand skyrocketed due to the oil boom. I'm guessing rents are plunging just as fast right now.
The author's solution also ignores economics. More housing vouchers will increase demand, and without a commensurate increase in supply rents will go up - benefitting the landlords once again. Supply of affordable housing is mostly limited by zoning and construction regulations that make new construction too expensive for the poor. That's why they are limited to older homes and trailer parks.
If you want to make easy money in real estate, you don't do low income housing. Slumlords have to deal with mental illness, drug addition, crime and vandalism. There is a risk/reward equation that says no one is going to put up with these problems unless the rewards are commensurate. It's safer and much easier to do middle income rentals. But the returns aren't as high.
Finally, I would guess that if you gave everyone an IQ test sometime between age 5 and 10, you could use those results to accurately predict who will be poor as an adult and who will not be. It won't be 100% accurate but I'm betting the correlation would be pretty high. Economic rewards today go to the intelligent, and those on the bottom of the bell curve are left behind.
The author's solution also ignores economics. More housing vouchers will increase demand, and without a commensurate increase in supply rents will go up - benefitting the landlords once again. Supply of affordable housing is mostly limited by zoning and construction regulations that make new construction too expensive for the poor. That's why they are limited to older homes and trailer parks.
If you want to make easy money in real estate, you don't do low income housing. Slumlords have to deal with mental illness, drug addition, crime and vandalism. There is a risk/reward equation that says no one is going to put up with these problems unless the rewards are commensurate. It's safer and much easier to do middle income rentals. But the returns aren't as high.
Finally, I would guess that if you gave everyone an IQ test sometime between age 5 and 10, you could use those results to accurately predict who will be poor as an adult and who will not be. It won't be 100% accurate but I'm betting the correlation would be pretty high. Economic rewards today go to the intelligent, and those on the bottom of the bell curve are left behind.
3
Flood the economy with low skilled workers through uncontrolled illegal immigration and off shore American jobs in the name of global competition and there is on way the disadvantaged can get work to keep out of these situations.
Soon (if not already) the social burdens of the disadvantaged will overwhelm the ability of the middle class to pay and the wealthy will use their power to float above the fray just like the third world countries we are racing to be like.
The only solution I see is a mix of conservative ideas like secure the border and remove non citizens combined with a Bernie Sanders like push for stronger job and social benefits for American citizens. Good luck on that.
Soon (if not already) the social burdens of the disadvantaged will overwhelm the ability of the middle class to pay and the wealthy will use their power to float above the fray just like the third world countries we are racing to be like.
The only solution I see is a mix of conservative ideas like secure the border and remove non citizens combined with a Bernie Sanders like push for stronger job and social benefits for American citizens. Good luck on that.
14
I read about this brilliant book in New Yorker about a month ago. And I fully support the universal housing voucher, akin to single payer health care, or food stamps. Perhaps the majority will vote for Sanders, and we get all this. Of course, maybe we get Trump. But the landlord may like the voucher, too. It guarantees rent. And while evictions are truly distressing for the tenant, they are not fun for the landlord either. Formerly a low income tenant, and now a low income landlord, I love Section 8 tenants. Although the State limits the rent I can charge (so some comments here are wrong: vouchers would not drive the rent up, because they would probably come with same limits), I am at least 100% sure 70% of rent will be on my account in time for mortgage and escrow payment to be covered. Landlords, when they default on mortgage, have generally longer grace period until eviction, than tenants, and HARP and HAMP loan modifications require the mortgage servicer to fit the monthly payment into 31% of homeowner's income. I think nobody should be asked to pay more than that for a place to stay. Yet, tenants do not enjoy that protection. There are too many vacant houses in the US for the US to have a homeless problem.
12
You know what drives me entirely mad about this story? Two things: politics and race. Without question, the majority of these folks in this trailer park are White and they seem to actually be aware and care about their situation. Whereas if this were some inner ghetto that is predominantly Black, there would be relatively free public housing, education, and unlimited medical care. This is not an exaggeration. There are no 2nd chances, 3rd chances and 10 chances. For people like Larraine, her lifeline ends with her.
I agree poverty is no accident. It's insane that a woman like this would wind up on the street. This is all politics and not something that just started now. It's taken decades for poverty like this to set in. The problem in this country right now is that the only talk is about the Black population problem and their problems, like they are alone or something is owed. It's a masterly opportunity for Democrats to "exploit" race and focus on specific sub sections of our population. We should be distributing our social benefits more evenly.
I agree poverty is no accident. It's insane that a woman like this would wind up on the street. This is all politics and not something that just started now. It's taken decades for poverty like this to set in. The problem in this country right now is that the only talk is about the Black population problem and their problems, like they are alone or something is owed. It's a masterly opportunity for Democrats to "exploit" race and focus on specific sub sections of our population. We should be distributing our social benefits more evenly.
12
Dr Desmond fails to explain how the housing voucher will not just result in higher rent prices for the current rental stock. In fact, in Chicago, which has a housing voucher program, evictions remain common for non-finance related reasons and the overall success of the program is questionable based on third-party analysis. Given building trends throughout the nation, developers are unlikely to invest large amounts of capital into housing for voucher-dependent populations and instead continue to build more expensive buildings for higher-income individuals with stable income. That is a less risky strategy than developing on the assumption that a controversial government program will continue to exist for multiple election cycles. The only alternative is HUD-run projects in low-cost areas like we had seen in Chicago; these had questionable societal benefits for both the residents and the surrounding neighborhoods.
3
As a Landlord who rents homes to lower-middle class tenants and tenants who have housing vouchers, let me point out a few facts not mentioned in this article. First, many if not most voucher holders have people (mostly boyfriends) move in to the property even though they are not allowed. The housing authority does not have the resources to stop this. This means that people are living free off your tax dollars who are not to receive the help. It is also known in the lower income community to keep the fathers name off the birth certificate. This will allow the woman to qualify for move government money. I have seen this tactic in multiple generations in the same family. Many people who receive government assistance in housing chose not to work even though they are able. There are jobs available. They don't work because they sleep until noon, watch Jerry Springer and are lazy. If taxpayers understood the rampant abuse of the social services they would be disgusted. It is one point to mention there is poverty but in this article it also should mention the abuse and mis use.
15
In the City of Philadelphia, we have had some very bad experiences with housing vouchers. Some poor but stable neighborhoods had market rents far below the regional average. The regional average was used to set the value of the voucher. The result was the destabilization of those neighborhoods as long-time tenants without vouchers were forced out in favor of voucher holders paying higher rents. Some of the voucher holders terrorized their neighbors, causing rapid decline of long-stable long-integrated neighborhoods.
12
Rent control is the only way. Rental subsidies are just absorbed by the computer savvy "slumlords" as more income for those already exploiting the lower tiers. To that end, they no longer will give home buyers smaller mortgages for homes under 40 or 50 K. And so all the housing in poor areas has been absorbed by the computer real estate monopoly and those people can no longer afford to finance the only homes they could qualify for. That is Unfair Lending. It takes that much cold hard cash to buy those houses then. They aren't bought by those who need them. They more often go to investors and speculators- real estate TEAMS, who then hope to collect two, three or four times in rent the cost of a mortgage was when they were available. Our dialogue and vision has to return to inclusion, and away from only respecting power and aggression. And the government needs to set fair lending standards and rent caps, and HUD needs to be more involved in renovation and recovery of viable properties, and stop handing them to the real estate brokers who already have an aggressive monopoly and a whole set of political sacred cows and prejudices.
8
As someone who has worked his whole life in the affordable housing field, I can say everything the writer says makes sense except the possibility that we will subsidize the rents of all the low-income households who need it. Republicans have been fighting a war against housing subsidies ever since Reagan and I don't see it changing. Rent subsidizes are expensive. Even in the Midwest where rents are cheaper, the average subsidized family is getting about a $5000 annual benefit and it you do the math, adding several million households to the section 8 rolls is a big number. Right wingers just hate this program: it is welfare for your housing needs without a time limit. As a nation, we would rather subject families to the hostile conditions of the marketplace on the theory it might motivate them to work harder. No amount of anecdotes or data seems to break that gut reaction.
15
In 1879, a California man named Henry George wrote a longish book that became the #2 best seller of the last two decades of the century. It was called "Progress and Poverty" and subtitled "An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth ... The Remedy." The connection between "Progress" and "Poverty" is not what one might think.
The book is available online. And it does supply a wise, just, efficient and logical remedy which relates to our most basic American values.
It was an earlier classical economist who said that "landlords grow rich in their sleep."
Those who own our best land, and our natural resources, get to collect from the rest of us, growing wealthy while impoverishing others, and in the process getting called "self-made."
The recent abridgment of Progress and Poverty, like the unabridged, is online. Search on "quotable notables," wealthandwant, lvtfan, "henry george" and you'll find answers to what otherwise seem to be unsolvable problems. See also "solving the unsolvable" and "resolving the economic puzzle."
There are better ways open to us than what we're dealing with now.
The book is available online. And it does supply a wise, just, efficient and logical remedy which relates to our most basic American values.
It was an earlier classical economist who said that "landlords grow rich in their sleep."
Those who own our best land, and our natural resources, get to collect from the rest of us, growing wealthy while impoverishing others, and in the process getting called "self-made."
The recent abridgment of Progress and Poverty, like the unabridged, is online. Search on "quotable notables," wealthandwant, lvtfan, "henry george" and you'll find answers to what otherwise seem to be unsolvable problems. See also "solving the unsolvable" and "resolving the economic puzzle."
There are better ways open to us than what we're dealing with now.
4
Eviction is not only a business or part of the economy, it's like having a felony conviction. It's that invisible little black mark that makes it impossible for you to ever rent, or buy an apartment again. At least in New York City.
The housing courts and streets are full of people who can attest to this fact. And their stories are all amazingly similar; whether it's long-term tenants tossed out of rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments, commercial tenants with leases that jump 300-400% overnight, or older tenants who must choose between paying the rent, or buying food and medicine. The hard truth is, it's not only people with substance-abuse problems, who become homeless. It's also hard-working people, some even with advanced degrees, who aren't even immune to this growing practice both here, and across the rest of the country.
There's something terribly wrong when the eviction process is allowed to thrives as a cottage industry. Is this what we've come to as a society?
The housing courts and streets are full of people who can attest to this fact. And their stories are all amazingly similar; whether it's long-term tenants tossed out of rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments, commercial tenants with leases that jump 300-400% overnight, or older tenants who must choose between paying the rent, or buying food and medicine. The hard truth is, it's not only people with substance-abuse problems, who become homeless. It's also hard-working people, some even with advanced degrees, who aren't even immune to this growing practice both here, and across the rest of the country.
There's something terribly wrong when the eviction process is allowed to thrives as a cottage industry. Is this what we've come to as a society?
19
Excuse the personal reference, but I have been writing about these forces repeatedly on the Times online. The key to understanding the problem of poverty in America is that it is not a condition, it is not an accident. We make poverty in America and once people slip into it, it is very difficult to escape. Plus, have no doubt, the exploitation of the poor is not only written into laws (particularly in the old south) but is an expectation of a capitalist economy. The sole mission of an executive of a corporation is to maximize profits. Period. In point of fact, those executives who don't do everything in that regard are removed either by their boards of directors or outside pressure from Wall Street or corporate raiders. Warren Buffet has said that business is an amoral activity. Unfortunately, he's right.
There are a panoply of businesses oriented around exploiting the poor: payday lenders, buy here/pay here used car lots, pawn shops, "poor credit" credit cards (high rates, quick cancellation, big annual fees), car title loans, banks that rip overdraft and other fees from those who have an account, high priced grocery stores, and, of course, low end rental properties
If anyone tries to change the laws to be more fair to the poor and near poor, the poverty exploitation lobby will go into full roar. This is mainly a state level issue and the lobbyists can win there again and again. In the south, the legacy laws, and general approach, from the slave period linger on even now.
There are a panoply of businesses oriented around exploiting the poor: payday lenders, buy here/pay here used car lots, pawn shops, "poor credit" credit cards (high rates, quick cancellation, big annual fees), car title loans, banks that rip overdraft and other fees from those who have an account, high priced grocery stores, and, of course, low end rental properties
If anyone tries to change the laws to be more fair to the poor and near poor, the poverty exploitation lobby will go into full roar. This is mainly a state level issue and the lobbyists can win there again and again. In the south, the legacy laws, and general approach, from the slave period linger on even now.
20
Do not blame the "Tobins." If Tobin invested in stocks in 1995, his $2.1 million investment would have grown to $5.5 million (DJIA as a marker). There would be no "work" involved and the only aggravation would be worry about the fluctuations in the market and not in bailing people out of jail. He would get no calls about stuffed toilets and not have to spend time collecting rent. His current net return of $447,000 (if accurate) is 8% on his investment. He could get 6% to 10% investing in high rent real estate (residential or commercial) without aggravation. He is actually doing a great service to poor people whereas our governmental programs work completely against him.
At present, a very good 3 bedroom, 2 bath pre-owned mobile home can be purchased for $20,000 to $25,000 (1,200 square feet). The problem is that the government supports mortgages on similar homes on land that cost 3 to 4 times that with guarantees to banks, but do not have programs in place that actually allow low income workers to purchase mobile homes in parks. This is especially strange since the parks take care of providing the utilities while the low income purchasers of a home on private land get a huge surprise when they have to pay for repair of the well pump or septic tank. They then bail out with the government picking up the costs.
What is needed is a governmental program that actually assists low income residents to purchase homes and have a stake in the mobile home park community.
At present, a very good 3 bedroom, 2 bath pre-owned mobile home can be purchased for $20,000 to $25,000 (1,200 square feet). The problem is that the government supports mortgages on similar homes on land that cost 3 to 4 times that with guarantees to banks, but do not have programs in place that actually allow low income workers to purchase mobile homes in parks. This is especially strange since the parks take care of providing the utilities while the low income purchasers of a home on private land get a huge surprise when they have to pay for repair of the well pump or septic tank. They then bail out with the government picking up the costs.
What is needed is a governmental program that actually assists low income residents to purchase homes and have a stake in the mobile home park community.
31
There is no housing shortage in America. There are actually 50% more housing units than needed for primary housing. People are becoming landlords instead of selling their property because the tax breaks are so good. Let's get rid of "landlord tax breaks" NOW and sell the property at reasonable prices to new owners, particularly young people who are raising families. They are being devastated by ever increasing rents.
66
Yes and no. In the single family market, and with the smaller duplexes and triplexes, you're right. We should encourage individuals to buy these places, and live in them - rather than encouraging investors to collect them. According to Mr. Desmond's book, this is how it used to be.
.
But it doesn't solve the big apartment buildings and complexes, including large trailer parks. Those are a different animal alltogether, and not one that an individual should be encouraged to own. The key to these is to find right minded, professional owners who make their money through careful investing and tax planning. The best apartment complex in my old neighborhood is an affordable (Low Income Housing Tax Credited) complex that I lobbied for. It was built and is owned by a real estate investment company that does luxury mid rises and shopping centers, and maybe a LIHTC development here or there. They generally break even on the affordable housing stuff- it's PR - and they make their money on the luxury buildings. They do the right thing, and it shows in their properties.
.
But it doesn't solve the big apartment buildings and complexes, including large trailer parks. Those are a different animal alltogether, and not one that an individual should be encouraged to own. The key to these is to find right minded, professional owners who make their money through careful investing and tax planning. The best apartment complex in my old neighborhood is an affordable (Low Income Housing Tax Credited) complex that I lobbied for. It was built and is owned by a real estate investment company that does luxury mid rises and shopping centers, and maybe a LIHTC development here or there. They generally break even on the affordable housing stuff- it's PR - and they make their money on the luxury buildings. They do the right thing, and it shows in their properties.
4
Really? If there was 50% too much housing, rents would be dirt cheap. Same with the everyone is becoming landlords. Wow! So many apartments and houses to chose from would be great for renters.
5
We gave people medical insurance.
Doctors and hospitals raised their prices.
We gave subsidized loans to college students.
Colleges and universities raised their tuitions and fees.
Now what will happen if we give housing vouchers to poor families?
Doctors and hospitals raised their prices.
We gave subsidized loans to college students.
Colleges and universities raised their tuitions and fees.
Now what will happen if we give housing vouchers to poor families?
89
My PCP told me a couple of years ago that he earns the same fee for an office visit that he earned when he began his practice in 1986. Doctors are not earning more because Medicare and insurance take the biggest cut from doctors when trying to control costs.
Public universities and colleges have not raised their prices out of proportion to their expenses. The private colleges and universities build stadiums to increase their profits, using tuition money to enrich their sports teams (football and basketball).
Your logic is specious and self-serving. As the writer says, "We lack something else": a heart.
Public universities and colleges have not raised their prices out of proportion to their expenses. The private colleges and universities build stadiums to increase their profits, using tuition money to enrich their sports teams (football and basketball).
Your logic is specious and self-serving. As the writer says, "We lack something else": a heart.
6
The landlord gets the full amount of rent, partly from the tenant and partly from the government. So he can continue to make $450,000 a year. If he raises the rent to profit more, he's likely to lose the tenant and the government money. So he's probably stuck with a paltry $450,000. That should satisfy him, don't you think?
Isn't that the point of this article, somewhat?
Except we didn't "give" people medical insurance -- we made it possible for them to buy it.
And my student loans were not subsidized -- just payment was deferred.
So if we give housing vouchers to poor families, we need to have some rent controls in place, so what you are hinting at doesn't happen.
The problem is all these halfway measures, that we aren't willing to commit to a hand up, just a finger.
Except we didn't "give" people medical insurance -- we made it possible for them to buy it.
And my student loans were not subsidized -- just payment was deferred.
So if we give housing vouchers to poor families, we need to have some rent controls in place, so what you are hinting at doesn't happen.
The problem is all these halfway measures, that we aren't willing to commit to a hand up, just a finger.
6
Yes, exploitation has been the mantra of the BIG democracy-destroying money masters for the last 40+ years when ALEC installed Nixon, then Reagan as their mouthpieces in the White House. It has gone beyond all reason now - 62 PEOPLE in the world own as much wealth as 3.5 BILLION. That is simply incomprehensible for most people to grasp. Housing crooks are the worst. We bailed Bank of America out and they bailed out developers in Dubai. They foreclosed on Americans, sat on the property, then after taking "losses" on the loans from the taxes they do not pay sold it for pennies on the dollar to BIG investment buddies who have raised rents beyond reason in many markets. They particularly like military markets because the housing allowance is high. Sometimes they own whole towns. Like Quicken Loans town previously known as Detroit. The money masters shut off the water there to force poor people out. It's beyond criminal and beyond comprehension that a few people can be so greedy, and have such immature social conscience, that they will destroy America if WE do not stop them in every election in the foreseeable future.
120
Isn't this just another case of politicians only caring about the unborn? Once you are born, too bad, you're on your own. You and your kids are living in a car and your stuff went to the dump? Oh well. The kids only mattered before they were born. Meanwhile, let's give some big tax breaks to large corporations.
219
...And, if you are Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), chair of the DNC and one of Hillary's biggest supporters, co-sponsor legislation to delay and permanently muffle pending the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules to rein in small-dollar lenders that can legally levy triple-digit annual interest rates people like Larraine.
6
One thing that would really help would be for the Earned Income Tax Credit to be paid in each paycheck, rather than disbursed when tax returns are filed. It's money that belongs to poor workers, after all, and they should be able to use it to manage their budgets without having to resort to despicable payday lending and going deeper into debt.
121
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill? I think the earned income tax break is just another gimme to businesses and corporations so they don't have to pay a living wage. The middle class is squeezed enough as it is.
7
They used to do it that way. Guess what, half the people wound up having to pay it back because they didn't qualify. Perhaps if people didn't buy big screen TV's when they received their $12,000 gift from the taxpayers but instead put it in savings for the next time they got a flat tire, they wouldn't be borrowing money from payday lenders.
More than 25% of the EIC is paid in error, and that's when it is paid at the end of the year.
The deductions for home mortgages and property taxes should be eliminated, rather than subsidizing the wealthy. That would cause housing prices to drop across the board.
More than 25% of the EIC is paid in error, and that's when it is paid at the end of the year.
The deductions for home mortgages and property taxes should be eliminated, rather than subsidizing the wealthy. That would cause housing prices to drop across the board.
4
That's not really practically possible. Your EIC depends on your earnings which can't be computed until you file your return. Moreover, the EIC is limited to families. Many of the folks described here are not living with kids.
1
This isn’t likely to get better without dramatic change. As the world becomes more not less interdependent we will be competing for more and more labor, which increasingly can be performed remotely. Add to this the fact that automation is obsolescing whole categories of human labor and, unlike at other periods of seismic shifts in the nature of labor, it’s not replacing it with anything. The gap between those who can generate the means for prosperity and those who can’t is increasing, not just here but in much of the developed world – we see European economies stalling, and they are under immense pressure to maintain their consuming social safety networks while also needing to consider the need to defend themselves for the first time in seventy years as the U.S. increasingly disengages.
An intermediate stage might allow us some respite if we can super-charge our educational infrastructure to make the next generation more competitive in the global labor market; but automation remains an acute threat to current economic assumptions – even for Europeans and, eventually, for everyone.
In order to significantly moderate poverty at current global population levels, we’re going to need economic frameworks alien to anything that has been tried before. And, sadly, they probably will destroy the incentives that have driven innovation since the start of the Industrial Revolution. But it could be that or blood in the streets.
An intermediate stage might allow us some respite if we can super-charge our educational infrastructure to make the next generation more competitive in the global labor market; but automation remains an acute threat to current economic assumptions – even for Europeans and, eventually, for everyone.
In order to significantly moderate poverty at current global population levels, we’re going to need economic frameworks alien to anything that has been tried before. And, sadly, they probably will destroy the incentives that have driven innovation since the start of the Industrial Revolution. But it could be that or blood in the streets.
31
"As the world becomes more not less interdependent we will be competing for more and more labor, which increasingly can be performed remotely."......Not true. There are lots of things you will never be able to do remotely. How do you build and repair infrastructure remotely? How do you improve public education remotely? If we invest in basic research at our universities and research centers, that can't be done remotely. Healthcare, housing, and food distribution can't be done remotely. These things improve the quality of life for everyone - even for those who pay a little more in taxes to foot the bill; but you can't do any of these things in an atmosphere where the goal is to cut spending and reduce the size of government.
26
W.A. Spitzer:
You build and repair infrastructure employing robots and very few human overseers. You improve public education in part by standardizing and elevating its quality through MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses) moderated by our best educators, cutting countless less-gifted teachers out of the loop. Basic research certainly can be performed anywhere, and, in time, much of it can be automated. Healthcare and food distribution as well can be automated to a far greater degree than at present, and it's getting there. Housing? Robots again.
I can't imagine that any likely solution to the challenges I've outlined will involve LESS spending and government; but your response fails to erect a single barrier to my reasoning.
You build and repair infrastructure employing robots and very few human overseers. You improve public education in part by standardizing and elevating its quality through MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses) moderated by our best educators, cutting countless less-gifted teachers out of the loop. Basic research certainly can be performed anywhere, and, in time, much of it can be automated. Healthcare and food distribution as well can be automated to a far greater degree than at present, and it's getting there. Housing? Robots again.
I can't imagine that any likely solution to the challenges I've outlined will involve LESS spending and government; but your response fails to erect a single barrier to my reasoning.
8
In the past seven years, the US economy has added four million jobs. In that same time period, we allowed in seven million *legal* immigrants, one million every year, not including a few million more refugees, illegal aliens, and H1B visa workers. We have been doing this for decades, while wages for working and middle class Americans have (inflation-adjusted) declined.
While we need the energy and ambition of young educated immigrants, we do not need a massive influx of workers at this time, when even skilled jobs are scarce, nor do we need to import more poverty, as if adding competition for our own low skilled workers and burdening the taxpayers with social services will somehow magically 'fix' our ailing economy.
Or not. We could continue with an immigration policy that has not worked for decades, while insisting this time it will be different, because anyone who dares bring up this incontrovertible fact - that there are too many workers for too few jobs and that cannot be fixed by importing more workers - will be called a 'racist', a 'xenophobe', or worse.
While we need the energy and ambition of young educated immigrants, we do not need a massive influx of workers at this time, when even skilled jobs are scarce, nor do we need to import more poverty, as if adding competition for our own low skilled workers and burdening the taxpayers with social services will somehow magically 'fix' our ailing economy.
Or not. We could continue with an immigration policy that has not worked for decades, while insisting this time it will be different, because anyone who dares bring up this incontrovertible fact - that there are too many workers for too few jobs and that cannot be fixed by importing more workers - will be called a 'racist', a 'xenophobe', or worse.
10
Maybe I'm naive but wouldn't this just raise rents as those with vouchers compete with the lower middle class for the same units and create a domino effect up the chain? It would also incentivize those just above the poverty line to cut their hours or find cash jobs so they can fall into the poverty level to receive vouchers as well as all the other benefits? Once again it would be the landlords that profit and yet another burden placed on the middle class.
80
With a voucher the tenant pays a third of their income. For instance: The state decides what the tenant can afford based on their income. Let's say the state decides the tenant can find a place for $900.00. The tenant pays $300.00 a month. Once the landlord agrees then an inspector comes out to make sure the living space is up to code. If it is not up to code then the state won't authorize the payment. In this scenario the owner has a steady income and the state has leverage. Payments can be stopped if the living space is not up to code. If the tenant gets behind or is evicted they lose the voucher.
The only problem is that everyone will not accept vouchers which causes those who can't afford to pay rent on their own to congregate in areas where vouchers are accepted.
The only problem is that everyone will not accept vouchers which causes those who can't afford to pay rent on their own to congregate in areas where vouchers are accepted.
2
You would be correct. Provider vouchers to poor families does help these poor families maintain stable housing conditions, but it also greatly benefits landlords. Not only do they have the benefit of more reliable rental income, but they are in a position to charge more rent because people who previously could not afford their rates now can.
While right wing economists may "cut their hours" or work under the table, real people would never dare to take such a risk. Anything less than working endlessly could mean they lose that job altogether.
The middle class pays to prop up corporation, to the tune of billions and billions in taxes deferrments and subsidies provided. Isn't that a moral hazard? Hasn't it made them dependent? Please look in to this. It is too much for me to put here.
The middle class pays to prop up corporation, to the tune of billions and billions in taxes deferrments and subsidies provided. Isn't that a moral hazard? Hasn't it made them dependent? Please look in to this. It is too much for me to put here.
1
Loan servicers also contributed to this problem. When a borrower goes into default, the third-party loan servicers start adding robo-fees to the loan obligation making it even harder for struggling borrowers to recover and become current on their loan again. The servicers don't care because they collect the fees if the property is sold to satisfy the mortgage obligation.
27
After a half-century of uninterrupted inflation, the cognoscenti can't recognize deflation when confronted with its peculiar process. Landlords have mortgages as well as the housing serfs, and they are mostly adjustable rate. When their lenders squeeze them they have to squeeze their tenants or face foreclosure which they will inevitably face down the road regardless of any number of failed reflation efforts. After a couple of dozen years, the process of bankrupting the current asset owners will play out and the assets will be recapitalized at a lower, more serviceable level. But the path to 2032 will not be pretty for those who bought at the top.
3
The purpose of Section 8 vouchers is to help these very people. I do not understand why landlords can refuse to accept theae vouchers. Food markets take food stamps and everybody takes welfare money. If there is a good reason why landlords can turn down Section 8 vouchers, then the value of the vouchers should be paid to the poor, usable for acceptable housing.
24
The reason landlords turn down vouchers, at least here in Houston and I'll bet in many other parts of the country, is that the Housing Choice Voucher program (formerly known as Section 8) requires inspections of the units, and comes with additional regulations and paperwork. Many slum lords know their units would never pass the inspections, and they don't like the idea of rules, so they just refuse the vouchers.
.
The other part is that Section 8 has a bad reputation. You say Section 8 and people think slums. The terms are often used interchangeably. Slum lords actually think that refusing vouchers somehow makes their build is more upscale!
.
The other part is that Section 8 has a bad reputation. You say Section 8 and people think slums. The terms are often used interchangeably. Slum lords actually think that refusing vouchers somehow makes their build is more upscale!
7
The problem is that there is a waiting list for the section 8 vouchers. Alot more people qualify for section 8 vouchers, than there is money to fund them. The article states that 75% of those that qualify for assistance, don't get it because it's under funded.
4
Because unfortunately some poor people bring their social problems with them - and it is almost impossible to evict bad tenants, despite what this article describes. It's not fair that the poor who need housing are painted with this broad brush - but that is what happens.
10
Critical article. This has been coming for some time now and its just gonna fester if we don't address it. If we sliced the Pentagon/homeland security budget by maybe 3-5 percent, that might cover what he suggests.
There should be some constraints on who qualifies for the vouchers however and guards against fraud: heavy drug use/sales, prostitution, flop houses for unrelated groups of people, dog fighting, etc....probably not a severe problem but would have to keep an eye on it. I'm certain the vast majority are hardworking, up-against-it people like Lorraine.
There should be some constraints on who qualifies for the vouchers however and guards against fraud: heavy drug use/sales, prostitution, flop houses for unrelated groups of people, dog fighting, etc....probably not a severe problem but would have to keep an eye on it. I'm certain the vast majority are hardworking, up-against-it people like Lorraine.
32
I agree, I spent years waiting for a voucher and was forced to live out of my car. I repeatedly saw people on section 8 cheat the system, food stamps sold for cash at 50% of value , and endless drug rehabs given to addicts . I was refused section 8 since I was a middle aged woman with no dependents, I was denied food stamps since I was living in my car . I was denied health insurance since I had no children under 18 . Finally I got a housing voucher , am getting medical care ( through Medicare) and hope to re-enter the workforce within the next year ( I still need surgery ) . I do not hide income , do drugs , alcohol , cigs or lottery. I want to work .
13
All the issues you raise are left to the landlord, who should promptly evict. These are not the government's problem.
1
Ther money has to keep flowing to the top which is why budgets of our military, which enforces global and police, which perform the same service at national and local levels, always increase while social services of every sort nosedive.
Democracy? I don't think we have a clue what that is and if we keep allowing the same exploiters to rule through the myth of free elective offices our kids won't know either.
Democracy? I don't think we have a clue what that is and if we keep allowing the same exploiters to rule through the myth of free elective offices our kids won't know either.
160
Obama's 2016 Federal budget:
Payments to individuals: 70%
Military, including pensions: 15%
Payments to individuals: 70%
Military, including pensions: 15%
9
it is not surprising that so many view military spending as funding acts of war. The answer is not to weaken the military. It is to assure that it is used to keep the peace. I don't have a problem with military spending. My problem is with the use we make of the armed forces. Moreover, we are the riches country in the world. We can afford a military that deters aggressive powers while we also support our poor. That's patriotism for me.
1
I call "pants on fire!" The GOP has vetoed so much of the good he could have accomplished.
5
How does it happen that a 54-year-old woman can be put out on the street *in America*?!? There is something *terribly* wrong with this picture. It's not only wrong from the perspective of caring for our most needy, but it's morally wrong. What is the name of the landlord who put this woman on the street? Why hasn't he been shamed to smithereens?
This is what happens when shelter (otherwise known as "rental property") is leveraged for pure profit. Look at what's happening in San Francisco - thousand of people displaced, as landlords, developers, and paid-off politicians rub their greedy hands together.
There is almost nothing left of the true 'sharing economy" (the gift economy) in this country. Instead, what we now call "sharing economy opportunities" have become little more than citizens who don't make enough to live on "sharing" the spare rooms in their homes (AirBnB), spare space in their cars (Uber, Lyft), and god knows what else via some inane "app" that earns them just enough to get by, while the investors and Founder (usually, some provileged 20-something) walk away with the BIGGEST shares? All while the latter two groups get tax breaks for "contributing to our economy". Pathetic!
This is what happens when shelter (otherwise known as "rental property") is leveraged for pure profit. Look at what's happening in San Francisco - thousand of people displaced, as landlords, developers, and paid-off politicians rub their greedy hands together.
There is almost nothing left of the true 'sharing economy" (the gift economy) in this country. Instead, what we now call "sharing economy opportunities" have become little more than citizens who don't make enough to live on "sharing" the spare rooms in their homes (AirBnB), spare space in their cars (Uber, Lyft), and god knows what else via some inane "app" that earns them just enough to get by, while the investors and Founder (usually, some provileged 20-something) walk away with the BIGGEST shares? All while the latter two groups get tax breaks for "contributing to our economy". Pathetic!
155
How can we bring in 100,000 refugees a year and give them free Welfare, housing? Vote for Clinton it will only get worst!
4
I wish to be compassionate! A time of reckoning will come! Cruelties, all this pain and suffering. We change every thing now! Or the reckoning will come. Shame overwhelms me! Too much pain and suffering. It's overwhelming!
40
Yes, James, many of us do. That is why we must ACT to change things however we can. It's not by "contributing" to the poor so the rich can get off scott free either. It's acting to make government officials at every level behave the way the majority of us want them to and that is to behave with compassion for all Americans.
21
This is a sad yet compelling piece. I hope your message is heard wide and far. Thank you.
13
I can add to the story told here by this quote:
"Payday loans are but one of many financial techniques — from overdraft fees to student loans subsidizing for-profit colleges — specifically designed to pull money from the pockets of the poor. This problem generally goes unrecognized by policy makers. But until we confront the fact that people make a lot of money off the poor, our efforts to reduce inequality will always come up short."
I recently proposed to do a series of stories on this very issue to a major, highly-respected national news organization where I once worked, before entering semi-retirement specifically to tackle such big issues. I argued that an entire constellation of high-cost lending practices was greatly exacerbating inequality - to this author's list I'd add "buy-here, pay-here" used car dealers, subprime mortgages, rent to own furniture, check cashing operations, "catalog sales" operations and much more. And I further that Americans had no idea of the size, scope, and historically-unprecedented nature and impact of such lending.
The response from the senior editor I pitched these ideas to? That my proposal had "a whiff of advocacy."
"Payday loans are but one of many financial techniques — from overdraft fees to student loans subsidizing for-profit colleges — specifically designed to pull money from the pockets of the poor. This problem generally goes unrecognized by policy makers. But until we confront the fact that people make a lot of money off the poor, our efforts to reduce inequality will always come up short."
I recently proposed to do a series of stories on this very issue to a major, highly-respected national news organization where I once worked, before entering semi-retirement specifically to tackle such big issues. I argued that an entire constellation of high-cost lending practices was greatly exacerbating inequality - to this author's list I'd add "buy-here, pay-here" used car dealers, subprime mortgages, rent to own furniture, check cashing operations, "catalog sales" operations and much more. And I further that Americans had no idea of the size, scope, and historically-unprecedented nature and impact of such lending.
The response from the senior editor I pitched these ideas to? That my proposal had "a whiff of advocacy."
40
We need more explanations for why and how the rich and our politicians depress the building of affordable housing - that is, simply increasing the supply of housing - while giving parasitic companies like AirBnB a free pass to take affordable units off the market. Nothing is affordable is it requires two six-figure incomes to make the rent, and considering how many adults in America are single, no one should be forced into tenement conditions because the wealthy and politicians are colluding to keep rents high. When the GIs came back from WWII, they demanded housing and perhaps because they had recently shown their prowess on an international stage, they got housing they could afford on a single income.
92
One could argue that the deregulation of the mortgage industry was planned.
Think about it: First they changed the laws so that sleazy lenders could offer poor people living in HUD apartments zero down, no doc, adjustable mortgages which everyone knew would be defaulted on when the mortgage rates rose.
In the meantime, HUD housing across the nation is demolished. Then, after the housing bubble bursts and causes the economic meltdown, millions lose their houses to foreclosure. Houses, now empty, are snatched up at record low prices by -- you guessed it -- mortgage companies. Who then sell them to slum lords, who...?
...sell them back to poor people who USED TO live in HUD apartments!
Conspiracy? Wall Street bankers and politicians taking millions in speeches? Nah. They wouldn't do that. They are swell.
Think about it: First they changed the laws so that sleazy lenders could offer poor people living in HUD apartments zero down, no doc, adjustable mortgages which everyone knew would be defaulted on when the mortgage rates rose.
In the meantime, HUD housing across the nation is demolished. Then, after the housing bubble bursts and causes the economic meltdown, millions lose their houses to foreclosure. Houses, now empty, are snatched up at record low prices by -- you guessed it -- mortgage companies. Who then sell them to slum lords, who...?
...sell them back to poor people who USED TO live in HUD apartments!
Conspiracy? Wall Street bankers and politicians taking millions in speeches? Nah. They wouldn't do that. They are swell.
10
Minimum wage should be calculated based on the cost of housing and basic utilities. It's the most important expense of the household and for a widening population exceeds reasonable budgetary planning. Failure to acknowledge this basic economic benchmark affects everything from credit scores to health. It's all related. Forget $15/hr. It's about nailing down the basis.
23
What has been described in this article is definitely real. Once in this trap, it is very difficult to achieve the momentum to get out of it. The ability to set aside money for decent groceries, an education and just plain basics is quickly dashed. It is just plain survival. There are the flea bag motels where whole families move into and scrape up just enough money to cover the weekly rent. There are homes where the owner rents out rooms, most likely to cover their mortgage payments.
73
HOW can this bee the left has held the purse stings for almost 60 years and have bene in power of at least 3 of the 4 branches of government ( Court, Congress, White House, Bureaucracy) most of the time. How can we not be living in a left wing utopia??? They control your life when your life what you drive yet homelessness that the media for some reason in the 21 century doesn't report numbers nightly like the did in the 80's. I think this is propaganda you must have missed the overlord tale of how great we are yesterday. I guess its all roses and Champaign for everyone it just hasn't got to you yet.
4
are you sane? The left has not held the purse strings for the past 60 years. Are you aware that, right now, the House of Congress, which controls all spending allocations, is dominated by Republicans? Are you aware that the last Bush administration held the purse strings as it callously cut back on spending for social network programs and very severely curtailed housing vouchers. That's not the left controlling purse strings. That Repugs.
4
What? "when your life what you drive yet homelessness "? "...like the did in "???
Champaign? Illinois?
Champaign? Illinois?
Exploitation is the essence of the capitalist enterprise. Until we embrace an economic system designed to serve communities (consider the Mondragon corporation as one model), we will continue to fight the same problem in different manifestations. The work of economist Richard Wolff and like-minded colleagues is pointing to alternative systems that can move us away from the commodification of all things, be these individual lives or our biosphere.
9
Low income housing is also a mental health problem parking lot.
For some landlords we replaced interior hollow doors with solid core.
He got tired of people kicking and punching holes in them.
You can blow up a stove making crack cocaine.
New appliances will disappear.
Some people believe that trash and garbage belong on the floor, and then wonder about why they have rodents, roaches and bedbugs.
I have seen units with the doors torn off, holes in the wall, all, in disarray, and be asked "What drug raid are you talking about, or that on on the police report you have.''
People having children just to have a check.
For some landlords we replaced interior hollow doors with solid core.
He got tired of people kicking and punching holes in them.
You can blow up a stove making crack cocaine.
New appliances will disappear.
Some people believe that trash and garbage belong on the floor, and then wonder about why they have rodents, roaches and bedbugs.
I have seen units with the doors torn off, holes in the wall, all, in disarray, and be asked "What drug raid are you talking about, or that on on the police report you have.''
People having children just to have a check.
30
If wages increases are largely lost to rent increases, as the article states, why would universal housing vouchers not have the same problem?
19
The rent vouchers would be a gift to the landlords. They would, slowly but surely, raise the rent. The y would take kickbacks from people with rent vouchers to let them rent, so the people would wind up paying more than their government mandated 30%. Adult children living in their affluent parents' houses and working part time at Starbucks would bring in a letter stating that they are expected to pay rent at their parents' house and would get a voucher (this is already done with food stamps). They could have a nice lifestyle with $193 in food stamps and an additional $500 per month in rent subsidy.
4
Why do we keep giving money to other companies. We simply can not afford to and we weigh the return, we need to reign in that money and help the poor.
10
mr desmond why are you bagging on tobin for investing in a trailer park? whatever tobin is charging has to be market rent, otherwise the trailer park would be empty. kudos to tobin for making a good investment and trying to help out his tenants. trying to demonize investors in poor neighborhoods is not the way to help the poor; if you do that the only one investing in poor neighborhoods will be the government; oh yeah; that has worked well, google cabrini green projects. the housing voucher thing is an ok idea, but it should not be a permanent fix.
24
I don't have a problem with slumlords making a buck. And if keeping people from being evicted is going to cost $22B I'd be for that. But how about an extra percentage to enforce Section 8 landlords' keeping their properties up to code?
3
Trailer parks are economic scams anyway. Renting in one is always better, because if you own a trailer in a park, the owner can sell at any time and then the new owner can immediately raise the lot fee. And pretty much if you ever move into one, you will be stuck there forever. We should ban them altogether.
1
The example you gave of Tobin's income on the 131 space mhp would average out to just $285/month. Most landlords of lower income mhparks work with the tenants. After managing properties (over 200 doors) like this for over 10 years, there has only been 1 case in my portfolio when a tenant was evicted for non-payment of rent. And in that case, it had more to do mental illness rather than a lack of funds.
12
Where does poverty end and mental illness begin?
3
Thought but unspoken: "We wouldn't have poor people if poor people didn't breed. Where is there in the Constitution a right to breed?"
I have spent much time among the working-poor. They are a vibrant culture. They share resources. Yet things are set up for them to fail. My most poignant experience of this was in Eureka, California. They do not participate in American individualism. They constitute a mutual-aid society that succeeds against all odds. Our society dies not accept the way that they succeed, their strengths, and tilts the odds against them.
I have spent much time among the working-poor. They are a vibrant culture. They share resources. Yet things are set up for them to fail. My most poignant experience of this was in Eureka, California. They do not participate in American individualism. They constitute a mutual-aid society that succeeds against all odds. Our society dies not accept the way that they succeed, their strengths, and tilts the odds against them.
28
Won't a robust housing voucher program raise rent the same way raising minimum wage does? It will primarily make slum landlords even richer. Exploitation needs to be frustrated, not stoked. The first control would be to put the paycheck cashing industry out of business. Who do we think we're fooling with that travesty of "capitalism"?
46
The subsidy program places a cap on the maximum rent that a landlord can charge. The maximum is close to the median rent for a unit of a given size in a housing market.
You raise an interesting point. If you increase the number of eligible families, can that influence rents overall (increase the median). The families receiving the subsidies will pay the same share of their income, the landlord will benefit.
The program also requires an inspection but here is the rub, the inspection is only as good as the program that conducts it. The program will also place a large demand on 2-3 bedroom units because there are rules to address overcrowding.
I agree with the article - get rid of the multi-year waiting lists and make the program available to all who are eligible.
You raise an interesting point. If you increase the number of eligible families, can that influence rents overall (increase the median). The families receiving the subsidies will pay the same share of their income, the landlord will benefit.
The program also requires an inspection but here is the rub, the inspection is only as good as the program that conducts it. The program will also place a large demand on 2-3 bedroom units because there are rules to address overcrowding.
I agree with the article - get rid of the multi-year waiting lists and make the program available to all who are eligible.
2
Given that the American socioeconomic system needs the poor to remain poor, I doubt that anything will be done about housing for a few or many years yet. However, that President Obama managed to make the changes he did in our healthcare system seems a miracle. Though even more change is needed, a few years ago I would never have thought the Affordable Care Act possible. So perhaps I shouldn't be completely pessimistic about making housing affordable for the poor.
23
No level of government is going to support increasing help to the poor, that's admitting there is a problem, which Is tantamount to saying America Will Not Be Great Again. The tax benefits offered to tenants versus homeowners is as appalling as the Fortune 500 that protect their profits by moving the HQ offshore, both government supported shelters, putting shareholder concerns ahead of anyone else. Mr. Desmond has exposed a minute portion of the hypocrisy, and many will dismiss these characters as irrelevant. He may be America's next greatest statesperson following the lead of those before him who could not accept fearing the status quo as a matter of principle.
16
Exploitation is unregulated free-market capitalism--greed without conscience or morality. In 2008, we saw the impact of deregulating banks which went into gambling-investment exploitation. Republicans have not learned. Republicans love to deregulate; they don't care if what is sold is dangerous so long as someone is making a buck. And Republicans tell us we cannot afford to spend money on social needs; instead we must spend more on the military even more than the Pentagon requests (I'm thinking of the $1 BILLION Sen. Susan Collins of Maine added to the 2016 federal budget deficit for the Navy destroyer the Navy did not want). Well the shipyard in Maine will make more money and the workers will have more work and people like Larraine will continue to be exploited because affordable housing is not a priority and our government will continue to ignore social needs because America is all about money--unleashed capitalism on steroids, devoid of morality.
66
"Inner-city bodegas take advantage of families’ lack of transportation to increase grocery prices, effectively reducing the value of food stamps. "
Having known someone who ran an inner city corner store, the argument that they are taking advantage is not accurate nor fair. Yes their prices are higher, but they operate from a much higher cost base than supermarket chains, they do not enjoy the price breaks on wholesale products that the major chains can secure, carry items in stock for weeks to years that suprmarkets can turn in days and have huge problems with fresh produce because demand is hard to predict (will the bananas sell before they go bad?) indeed much of the poor quality of the nutrition they provide is driven by their need to avoid spoilage issues.
I'm not saying that the food deserts do not exist or that prices in bodegas are not high as compared to supermarket chains - but the reasons have less to do with "taking advantage" and more to do with the problems of serving poor inner city communities and the economics of running a bodega.
Having known someone who ran an inner city corner store, the argument that they are taking advantage is not accurate nor fair. Yes their prices are higher, but they operate from a much higher cost base than supermarket chains, they do not enjoy the price breaks on wholesale products that the major chains can secure, carry items in stock for weeks to years that suprmarkets can turn in days and have huge problems with fresh produce because demand is hard to predict (will the bananas sell before they go bad?) indeed much of the poor quality of the nutrition they provide is driven by their need to avoid spoilage issues.
I'm not saying that the food deserts do not exist or that prices in bodegas are not high as compared to supermarket chains - but the reasons have less to do with "taking advantage" and more to do with the problems of serving poor inner city communities and the economics of running a bodega.
114
Well put.
I hope everyone reads your comment.
I expect that what you say about proprietors of bodegas is largely true of the owners of trailer parks and inner city landlords too. Simple economics teaches that if there are super-profits to be made -- apparently large enough to make a hedge fund manager's mouth water -- there would be other landlords trying to hustle a piece of the action. The resulting competition should mean lower rents and lower profits. So why are the laws of economics suspended in trailer parks?
It is irresponsible for the author to casually toss around loaded terms like "exploitation" and to try to kick off a hate week against bodega owners and slumlords. Most seriously, it hurts the homeless by encouraging the naive view that the problem of homelessness would go away if only landlords were less greedy.
This is our problem, not a problem we can lay off on shopkeepers and landlords.
I hope everyone reads your comment.
I expect that what you say about proprietors of bodegas is largely true of the owners of trailer parks and inner city landlords too. Simple economics teaches that if there are super-profits to be made -- apparently large enough to make a hedge fund manager's mouth water -- there would be other landlords trying to hustle a piece of the action. The resulting competition should mean lower rents and lower profits. So why are the laws of economics suspended in trailer parks?
It is irresponsible for the author to casually toss around loaded terms like "exploitation" and to try to kick off a hate week against bodega owners and slumlords. Most seriously, it hurts the homeless by encouraging the naive view that the problem of homelessness would go away if only landlords were less greedy.
This is our problem, not a problem we can lay off on shopkeepers and landlords.
2
I worked at a food distributor in the Hunts Point Market for nearly a decade. At every sales meeting when the major bodega owners and their trade associations came to our facility, the parking lot was filled with Bentleys and Range Rovers. Of course, the food sold at the bodegas in the Bronx and Washington heights was rumored to be just a cover for the numbers running and other illegal activities.
3
At what point will we stop blaming "the economics of running a bodega," and contrived excuses like "oh we don't know if the bananas will sell before they go bad"? (The grocery stores in middle class and wealthy areas don't know either if all of their bananas will sell, but it doesn't prevent them from carrying bananas).
.
People in poor neighborhoods want fresh produce. Community gardens have proven to be incredibly popular in poor neighborhoods. Farmers markets, too. If grocers and bodega owners can't see this as an opportunity to get into those markets and sell fresh produce, then it's a sign of their own prejudices.
.
People in poor neighborhoods want fresh produce. Community gardens have proven to be incredibly popular in poor neighborhoods. Farmers markets, too. If grocers and bodega owners can't see this as an opportunity to get into those markets and sell fresh produce, then it's a sign of their own prejudices.
4
I think one of the main factors contributing to poverty are people having kids they cannot support. Single parent households, evictions and exploitation of low income families are just a side effect of poor family planning. Instead of helping families in poverty, the government should work on incentivizing poor people to delay starting families until they are financially stable. Therefore, a better alternative to housing vouchers is paying low income people (in some form) to not have children.
62
I completely agree. Everywhere I look I see young women carrying babies dressed in designer clothes as accessories. We all know they are on welfare and the kids in designer clothes as babies are the problem children in the future.
1
What I think is "poor" planning is allowing tax dollars and the government to subsidize multibillion dollar corporations through legislation like the 2004 "American Jobs Creation Act" which did little to create jobs but made sure some major big money corporations got some pretty hefty subsidies (i.e.welfare) and tax write offs. The above is just a small example out of many, like off-shoring profits so you don't have to pay any taxes. Multibillion dollar corporations and the large "financial" institutions are allowed to gamble with other people's money, lose it, and then ask the tax payers to give them more. Compared to this group of white collar thugs...poor and working class people are saints. Our militarized police force should be locking up the crooks "in the suites" besides the crime in the streets.
7
Your logic is valid, but people have to have something. An endless cycle of poverty is not going to be a good replacement for the dream of having a family. How about, we make sure college and other goals are available to all kids?
2
And as everything becomes more efficient, so too does the exploitation. If you get a raise or a tax break, your expenses will suddenly rise by the same amount, because anything else would be a less optimal allocation of capital.
15
I keep telling you people that the number one issue in America, from an economic perspective, is the endless tax subsidies that go to high income people. There's enough money to balance the budget by just getting rid of all of them. I mean all of them, not just the ones that you don't like. They are killing us. It's not just the loss of revenue but it's also directing everyone's energy into using them to avoid paying a fair share and even worse the economic distortion - reducing output - that they engender.
198
"There's enough money to balance the budget by just getting rid of all of them."....Did you know that if, beginning 50 years ago, the IRS had collected all the taxes that were owed, today there would not be any federal debt? So what does the Republican Congress due? They slash the budget of the IR,S and Cruz wants to eliminate the IRS entirely. Makes you wonder if they really care about the deficit or whether they are being driven by some more hidden motive.
31
It doesn't make me wonder. I do not at all have any belief in the system. The government works for those that control it. Amazingly liberal democrats think the way to solve this is to make the government, which we agree is corrupt and run by large corporate interests, even more powerful. Can it be changed to work for the people? Yes, but only slowly and certainly not by electing those that are bought and paid for, like Hillary Clinton. Trump is doing what no democrat could hope to achieve, destroy the conservative portion of the republican party.
1
The mortgage interest and charitable deductions should be cut back for those making, say, $250,000 or more. The additional revenue then needs to be used to create affordable housing and reduce food insecurity. Simple, if only the wealthy would be a little more willing to share. A tall order, but I pray it happens.
2
Where did "Larraine" go? I think that is an important part of this story. She did not evaporate when she lost that cheap trailer. She went somewhere. This system did not just take her trailer, it did that to her too.
Maybe some people can only afford a room, like college students in a house on campus. Maybe some can only afford to share a room. We need to look that in the face and see it. Is that right?
If it isn't, then pay for better. If it is, then set it up in safety. Whichever, do something. Lorraine did not evaporate.
We can set up cheap public housing in vast quantities quickly. See the parks of small places created after Katrina. Those were better than cardboard boxes under a bridge abutment.
Those are not good enough? Provide better. The lower end is not that hard to build.
The truth -- we don't want to. We just don't care. They evaporate. We see a few tiny fragments of it, only those, and avert our eyes, and don't think about the people after that.
So where is Lorraine? Did she die? Is she under a bridge?
Maybe some people can only afford a room, like college students in a house on campus. Maybe some can only afford to share a room. We need to look that in the face and see it. Is that right?
If it isn't, then pay for better. If it is, then set it up in safety. Whichever, do something. Lorraine did not evaporate.
We can set up cheap public housing in vast quantities quickly. See the parks of small places created after Katrina. Those were better than cardboard boxes under a bridge abutment.
Those are not good enough? Provide better. The lower end is not that hard to build.
The truth -- we don't want to. We just don't care. They evaporate. We see a few tiny fragments of it, only those, and avert our eyes, and don't think about the people after that.
So where is Lorraine? Did she die? Is she under a bridge?
148
Odds are: living with a relative, in a homeless shelter, or living out of her car.
2
I was thinking the same thing as I was reading this column. Really, what happened to Larraine? As a 54 year old woman, the thought of being homeless is terrifying. I cannot imagine what I would do, too old for sleeping on a park bench and too young for medicare and social security. So, Matthew Desmond, what happened to her?
9
Cheap housing= firetrap. Cheap housing means no frills like air conditioning or cable tv. No one would accept a home without these amenities.
In some states landlord have the choice of accepting two months' rent upfront, or one month's rent and a security - but not two months' rent *plus* a security deposit. In some states, late fees on rent are illegal (but landlords of course can always find a surreptitious way to evict). Policy must change *nationwide," so that people don't have the give the equivalent of three months' rent upfront.
Also - renting should not be tied to credit reports.
Also - renting should not be tied to credit reports.
14
Speaking for myself, I am 100% for a woman as president conditional to her serving the interest of citizens. Instead of serving the interest of corporations or a few billionaires. Same conditions for any man president. Unfortunately Hillary past behaviors demonstrated that she served the interest of corporations, not the interest of citizens. Find above video for supporting evidences. So her current talk about serving citizens as little or no credibility. I suggest to demand all presidential candidates to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States, and not be tied to the interest of corporations. Any other women interested in being president and serving the interest of citizens, instead of serving the interest of corporations?
5
This is an excellent article, but I have to disagree with one point: the arbitrary line that would cut off assistance to all renting families making ABOVE the 30th percentile in median income in any given area.
Part of the success behind Social Security is that, not only does everyone pay taxes into the program, (albeit, a regressive tax) but everyone receives benefits from the program.
This program should cover everyone up to 100% of median family incomes, then pro-rate payments up to 200%. It could be paid for via real estate transaction taxes (to discourage flipping and foreign investment by non-residents) and property taxes on any house owned, but not resided in, by any person, business, or corporation.
People should be home buyers, not renters. But right now affordable houses aren't being built for the middle class. And wages are too low to even cover crazy-high rents, let alone save for a downpayment. And don't talk about zero down mortgages. You need to learn to be a saver before you should be a home-buyer.
Part of the reason Republicans (and a famous Conservocrat) was able to radically dismantle the social safety net (and now attack Obamacare) was that many saw these programs as serving only the lazy, the shiftless, and fraudsters. They didn't directly benefit from those programs (they thought) so they didn't care if they were cut. Today, they know otherwise. For programs to work, they must be available to ALL lower and middle class Americans.
Part of the success behind Social Security is that, not only does everyone pay taxes into the program, (albeit, a regressive tax) but everyone receives benefits from the program.
This program should cover everyone up to 100% of median family incomes, then pro-rate payments up to 200%. It could be paid for via real estate transaction taxes (to discourage flipping and foreign investment by non-residents) and property taxes on any house owned, but not resided in, by any person, business, or corporation.
People should be home buyers, not renters. But right now affordable houses aren't being built for the middle class. And wages are too low to even cover crazy-high rents, let alone save for a downpayment. And don't talk about zero down mortgages. You need to learn to be a saver before you should be a home-buyer.
Part of the reason Republicans (and a famous Conservocrat) was able to radically dismantle the social safety net (and now attack Obamacare) was that many saw these programs as serving only the lazy, the shiftless, and fraudsters. They didn't directly benefit from those programs (they thought) so they didn't care if they were cut. Today, they know otherwise. For programs to work, they must be available to ALL lower and middle class Americans.
24
I see that Matthew Desmond has a job at Harvard writing about poverty. Some unkind people might conclude that his livelihood is an "exploitation" of the poor. Anyone who is not poor is subject to this charge, even those who see themselves as advocates and champions of those who end up on the bottom. Try all you might, you will never create a system that has only a top and no bottom. A newspaper that runs ads for high end real estate, jewels, fashion, watches, and international travel must realize this. This Op Ed is running because of ad revenue from the exploiters. Exploitation is another way of talking about the interdependence of an economy which inevitably produces winners and losers. But if I am going to lose, please let it be in America. The bottom here is as high as it can be in this world.
24
"Try all you might, you will never create a system that has only a top and no bottom."
"The bottom here is as high as it can be in this world."
These statements are both so patently false one wonders if the author has ever traveled at all, especially to one of the "almost completely middle class" Scandinavian countries, or Germany, or Netherlands, or many, many others. I lived in Sweden for some time, admittedly before the recent refugee crisis, and the level of health, wealth, and security was so much higher there than it is here that I was ashamed to be an american. I've spent time in northern Europe and Scandinavia every year since, and the facts haven't changed when it comes to social justice and inequality.
See the multitudes of studies ranking comparative country statistics. Or, just keep parroting the bankrupt "greatest country in the world" propaganda. Your choice.
"The bottom here is as high as it can be in this world."
These statements are both so patently false one wonders if the author has ever traveled at all, especially to one of the "almost completely middle class" Scandinavian countries, or Germany, or Netherlands, or many, many others. I lived in Sweden for some time, admittedly before the recent refugee crisis, and the level of health, wealth, and security was so much higher there than it is here that I was ashamed to be an american. I've spent time in northern Europe and Scandinavia every year since, and the facts haven't changed when it comes to social justice and inequality.
See the multitudes of studies ranking comparative country statistics. Or, just keep parroting the bankrupt "greatest country in the world" propaganda. Your choice.
5
Have you ever been to India? The average family in India -- I mean middle class, not dirt poor "untouchables" -- lives in a very simple house with maybe 4 rooms. Likely nobody has a private bedroom, let alone anything we would recognize as a "bathroom" (hint: it's a hole in the floor that you squat over). A woman like Lorraine would live with her children, if she is a widow or in poor health. People sleep all over the house at night, on the floor or on furniture. They do not expect their own private bedroom, or an entire private house/apartment for each individual! Several generations live in one small house.
The "standard" in the US is much, much higher than this -- and probably unsustainable in the current economy and world conditions. Everybody know believes they are entitled to a private home/apartment -- for one single adult! -- families do not live together, especially with rampant divorce and unwed motherhood. So each person "has to have" their own place. That place must have a private bathroom OF COURSE, and a private kitchen, all appliances, and be air conditioned. And of course, premium cable TV or you are "deprived". Oh and now -- wi fi (or you are deprived).
The "standard" in the US is much, much higher than this -- and probably unsustainable in the current economy and world conditions. Everybody know believes they are entitled to a private home/apartment -- for one single adult! -- families do not live together, especially with rampant divorce and unwed motherhood. So each person "has to have" their own place. That place must have a private bathroom OF COURSE, and a private kitchen, all appliances, and be air conditioned. And of course, premium cable TV or you are "deprived". Oh and now -- wi fi (or you are deprived).
4
>>>>
You better believe it is. America is a mean and sick country. Proof? Turn on the TV.
America will always blame the poor and praise the rich. The poor will always have too much money and the rich not enough. It claims to be a country of Christians, nothing could be further from the truth.
Sent from iPad
You better believe it is. America is a mean and sick country. Proof? Turn on the TV.
America will always blame the poor and praise the rich. The poor will always have too much money and the rich not enough. It claims to be a country of Christians, nothing could be further from the truth.
Sent from iPad
134
In the interest of social science, Dr. Desmond should take the million or so dollars he has recently come in to due to his Genius Grant and book advance and buy some rental property in the inner city. Then he should report back in a few years about what's he learned having the shoe on the other foot.
32
Don't worry, it will go to "advocacy" to convince local governments to force other people to do that work for him. That way, when it fails, the advocates can just blame the landlords again & not have to put their money where their mouth is. Rule one of this type of advocacy is always put as much of someone else's money on the line.
2
This article shines a bright light on one of the darkest issues in contemporary American life: the fact that so many of us are struggling and sometimes failing just to meet our rent. I live in Seattle, where we've recently seen the wholesale demolition of small pre-war apartment buildings and private homes that once were rentals. They've been replaced by much bigger buildings with smaller units and much higher rents. In a city where few tenant protections are available, these changes mean that rents are skyrocketing everywhere. Even the older apartments that survive are now as expensive as the new ones. Working-class people, white and black, have been pushed out of the city center to make room for new arrivals with fatter paychecks. The human and structural fabric of this new city is barely recognizable to those of us who have lived here for decades. And who benefits? The fatcats and banksters.
76
I agree, Bucky. Just exactly who is it that decided that Seattle should be the biggest, most expensive city on the West Coast? Whoever it is people like you and I must stop them through citizen action. It works!
9
We're seeing the same thing in Portland. I live in a working class neighborhood where rents have been reasonable for decades. The last couple of years they've increased tremendously and many long-term residents are being forced out. I don't know where most are going, but small tent cities are springing up everywhere. A 92-year-old neighbor, who had been living in the same home here for 25 years, suddenly had her rent raised seven fold. She was given three months to move. I don't know what became of her. Last I heard her health was failing, and she was having a garage sale and selling most everything she owned. It's heartbreaking. Portland is no longer the city I've known and loved for over 30 years.
12
One of the factors that impacts eviction is the general lack of mobility of the work force, especially if children are part of the household. Jobs are the key to stable income and from that the ability to find affordable, safe housing. Aside from the Federal Section 8 program, little support for housing is available, and it has not expanded in the last eight years. Incentivize work is a nice phrase, but meaningless if non government jobs are not available. Most politicians, having never held a non government job have not a clue on how jobs are created. Change is the future, and that means following the jobs where they will be created. Today, with the exception of the health care field, the life cycle of a job is under five years. Better and lower cost of work is constantly happening, this will always lead to a shift of the area new jobs are being created. So, unless the work force is mobile, the eviction economy will always be a problem.
28
I was an accountant when Ronald Reagan's 1986 Tax reform act took effect. We could read volumes about how trickle down has helped the rich and ultra-rich. Not one word about how it has hurt the poor.
85
I was struck by the recent review of Mr. Desmond's book by Barbara Ehrenreich, whose book 'Nickel and Dimed' was one that I used when I taught, and which high school students thought was fascinating and really important.
It got me looking at the Economic Hardship Reporting Project (http://economichardship.org/) that she's spearheaded, and which does justice to the pervasiveness of poverty and all that in touches from health, education, work, urban/rural development and many other issues.
It's hard to see people profit off the impoverished, or for the system to crush them with inequitable burdens. But we need to see this because we can't let economic and judicial policies be harmful to fellow Americans.
It got me looking at the Economic Hardship Reporting Project (http://economichardship.org/) that she's spearheaded, and which does justice to the pervasiveness of poverty and all that in touches from health, education, work, urban/rural development and many other issues.
It's hard to see people profit off the impoverished, or for the system to crush them with inequitable burdens. But we need to see this because we can't let economic and judicial policies be harmful to fellow Americans.
88
"A universal housing voucher program would fundamentally change the face of poverty in the United States."
Let me guess. Hillary Clinton doesn't support it and won't support it.
Let me guess. Hillary Clinton doesn't support it and won't support it.
37
Yes it would. It would cause rents to soar in places like Milwaukee.
8
No one who has ever had the misfortune to live near subsidized housing believes that 'a universal housing voucher program would fundamentally change the face of poverty in the United States.'
But do tell about how subsidized housing has worked in the banlieues of Paris.
But do tell about how subsidized housing has worked in the banlieues of Paris.
7
Thank you for this enlightening article with specific details of how it is expensive to be poor. Of course the money is available. Even Republicons (Republican politicians) admit it when they demand increased military spending. The political will is not there, and it is cruel.
If we want to guarantee this continues, let's elect Republicons to the Presidency, Congress, governorships, and legislatures. If we want a hope (not a guarantee) that there could be some improvement, let's elect Democrats. If we really, really want to change, vote for people like Bernie Sanders who are not part of the system that encourages the eviction carousel, the profit-making pseudo-education industry, the private prison complex, and more.
If we want to guarantee this continues, let's elect Republicons to the Presidency, Congress, governorships, and legislatures. If we want a hope (not a guarantee) that there could be some improvement, let's elect Democrats. If we really, really want to change, vote for people like Bernie Sanders who are not part of the system that encourages the eviction carousel, the profit-making pseudo-education industry, the private prison complex, and more.
239
Yes, Senator Sanders will make an excellent Vice President to Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton when she is elected. What a team!
7
If Bernie Sanders had a choice, he'd be an independant; he'd forge a party based on decency and compassion and fairness and would happily spit on the democratic party that happens to be just as corrupt and rotten as the GOP. The myth that democrats are somehow immune to greed is exactly that - a myth. It's a matter of degree, not genuine idealogical difference. The whole system needs to be torn down and Bernie knows that.
7
And if Bernie doesn't happen to become President and Hillary does, she should make him Secretary of HUD or Education to lead the charge in addressing these problems. Maybe create a position of Affordable Housing Czar for Bernie. His vitality and vision needs to be put to use nationally after the election.
3
Capitalism cannot survive without its poor.
As Marx said, "the rich will do everything for the poor but get off their backs".