“The Out of Reach report similarly says that “more than half of all wage earners cannot afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at Fair Market Rent while working full-time. At least 60% cannot afford a modest two-bedroom rental home while working full-time.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet the vast majority of those wage earners are not currently homeless. Clearly they’re meeting their housing needs somehow, despite not earning a so-called housing wage. Most likely, they too are making some tradeoffs between unit price, location, quality, and size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fact is that individuals and families are always going to have to make those tradeoffs at any price and wage level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lowering housing costs through deregulation\u2014so that more housing, and more types of housing, can be built in more places\u2014would certainly lessen the tradeoffs between housing costs and other desirable features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet by ignoring that people do (and always will) make tradeoffs when finding housing, the Out of Reach report downplays what land-use deregulation can accomplish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While calling it an essential part of an overall affordability strategy, the report says that “zoning reform alone cannot solve the affordable housing crisis, particularly for the lowest-income renters.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That’s probably true if the goal is having every minimum wage worker spending no more than 30 percent of his income to live by himself in a midpriced, two-bedroom unit while working no more than 40 hours a week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It’s probably not true if the goal is to give that minimum wage earner more housing options, so that he and his partner can afford to live in a larger unit, or he individually can rent a room closer to work or school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Free markets give people what they want at a price they’re willing to pay. What they might be willing to pay for might be something different than what the Out of Reach report imagines they should have.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n