> In a world with ubiquitous housing, there is no need for social housing, because that which is ubiquitous (oxygen) is affordable.
> In a world with scarcity, social housing protects the poor against unaffordability. That's commendable. However, scarcity also means there is not enough for everyone.
And in a world with landlords, housing can be both ubiquitous AND scarce! (At least in the USA, the number of vacant homes greatly outnumbers the number of homeless people in the country)
This is a repeatedly debunked myth that does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
First, the number of vacant homes. The vast majority of these at any given time are vacant because they are on the market, someone has signed a lease but not moved in yet, or they are undergoing repairs. Of the homes that are legitimately vacant, many of these are in very poor shape, and in areas where no one wants to live. Suggesting that these homes are a solution to homelessness means that you want to send homeless people to live in condemned structures with no running water an hour outside of Detroit.
Second, the number of homeless. The number used in this factoid is only the number of chronically unhoused, often mentally ill homeless. These people need a lot of support and medical treatment. Sending them to live in a random vacant home, much less one with no running water an hour outside of Detroit, is not going to help them. But people spouting this factoid don't actually care about the homeless. They are simply a prop for a cute political point. If you counted the true number of homeless, sheltered, and housing-insecure folks, this dumb factoid wouldn't sound as good.
Third, the entire concept. Vacancies are lowest in the areas in the country with the highest homeless populations. So the entire implication that some evil (probably foreign) real estate investors are causing homelessness is baseless. The reality is that vacancies are mostly associated with how competitive the real estate market is, which is associated with the economic opportunities in an area vs the supply of housing. Higher vacancies means it is easier to find a place, which means that landlords get nervous and drop the rents. There was a very clear demonstration of this in San Francisco during 2020 when a lot of renters left. Rents dropped by 1/4 or more, while vacancies rose.
It's a joke to suggest housing is ubiquitous in the US. The number of vacant homes in most metros in the US is less than one year's population growth, and as a fraction of housing stock at historical lows.
Correct. Landlording introduces additional competition in the housing market, making buying and renting costs go up, and that's why it's profitable even when a lot of homes stay empty and a lot of people struggle to survive.
Add to that a political system that takes the side of large investors...
This is the most basic economics. You introduce additional, artificial competition for buying homes from a group wealthy people and - surprise - the prices go up.
You mean the demand goes up and supply does not change? That is not really an increase in competition, more like less competition in the market...AFAIS
> In a world with scarcity, social housing protects the poor against unaffordability. That's commendable. However, scarcity also means there is not enough for everyone.
And in a world with landlords, housing can be both ubiquitous AND scarce! (At least in the USA, the number of vacant homes greatly outnumbers the number of homeless people in the country)