Subsidizing is not the same as subsidence, even though people may use the words interchangeably

This is a long one…you might want to get some popcorn and take a leak. This is my bumbling response to The Ambassador who brought up a very valid point about people who complain about “substandard housing” but offer no solutions. Here’s my analysis, mixed with some opinion and common sense:

The idea of "substandard housing" is broad. I would define a “substandard housing” situation as one that does not meet at least two of the following criteria: economically affordable (meaning, by the government definition, ~30-40% of yearly income), made from materials that are not toxic (asbestos, lead, etc.), not ostracized to the corners of cities and removed from the low-wage jobs the tenants would have, not located in areas adjacent to airports, rail yards, or other areas that these things are usually built in, are not socially stigmatized by people that don’t know any better claiming they are havens of drug abuse or domestic violence, and built according to basic safety codes.

I'm in full agreement with The Ambassador on removing slum lords and their ilk. But we can go further without the government running the housing market. We can leave housing a market commodity but still have substantial improvement. I don't think the government should be running the housing or even building the housing. But...they are already providing housing for middle class and rich Americans (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA loans, etc...). Why can't they provide money for low-income housing and home-ownership as well?

Just so you know: I'm not an advocate of government solutions. Government is a poor manager of money, efficiency, and time. And I will give no slack to people that are lazy, job the system, or do stupid things and then expect to be bailed out by government so they can then keep doing the same thing. People like that don’t deserve to get benefits because they never put into the pot. But, the majority of people, even the desperately poor, are hard-working and would rather work and be productive than be given hand outs.

Part of the government’s job is to provide funds for things that are 1) not affordable by a single entity (such as the military, space programs, etc.) and 2) are unlikely to be built by private parties because other people will get free use of them (roads, bridges, etc.). This is done by levying taxes on everyone. That way, everyone pays for them and everyone has a stake in them. (I admit this is an idealized situation, but these behaviors are included in many definitions of government).

In no particular order, the more obvious things to improve the situation are:

1) Direct federal funds earmarked ONLY for building affordable housing. By affordable, I mean small apartments for people making poverty level or lower wages that are consistent with my definition of what constitutes “standard housing” above. My definition of the poverty level is, admittedly, not the same as the government’s since the formula is fundamentally flawed. But that's a different story. These buildings would be run as businesses but with the possibility of subsidies during lean periods. If farmers, big oil, airlines, and banks can get subsidies, why not entrepreneurs interested in running apartment complexes for low-income people?

2) Enforce the laws we have now. This includes fair housing laws and basic building codes and safety standards. New laws are pointless unless the ones we have now are given a chance to work.

3) Be more equitable in services coverage. Poor areas tend to have fewer police stations, fire fighters, and emergency health services. This would make many areas that are now considered “substandard” into areas that are not. It’s not always the physical housing. Sometimes it’s just the condition of the neighborhood.

4) Stop spending money on political capital and start working on domestic human capital. Education is key. Good schools and good teachers would go a long way. Educated people are less likely to live in these areas or end up there as a result of low-wage jobs or poor “life choices” in the parlance of our times.

A large part of the problem is related to the more insidious and pervasive things. These also have to change:

1) Racism, ageism, sexism, and all other –isms related to discrimination. These things keep poor people huddled together, racially segregated, and reinforce the social settings that create substandard areas in the first place.

2) Social ostracism of people that live in poverty as well as the jobs they have (house workers, sales clerks, waitresses, etc.). These are not stupid people. They’re not lazy, selfish, or criminals. They are people that didn’t have opportunities we take for granted and often get caught in vicious economic, political, and social battles that are out of their control. These jobs also take a strong physical and mental toll on workers that is not recognized by the public at large.

3) We have to remove greed. CEO’s make millions, secretaries minimum wage. By taking a few less millions and raising the pay of secretaries to more than $7.75 an hour, companies would increase their public image, decrease turnover and absenteeism, and improve the lives of millions. In turn, the workers could afford to move out of decrepit housing and leave them empty to be bulldozed and turned into something more useful.

There’s a pattern above. Most of the solutions to “substandard housing” are not directly related to the physical abode. Most of them are social problems that reinforce bad conditions. We could build (monetarily) “affordable” houses until we’re blue in the face, but if people can’t afford houses because they’re buying food or medical care, or are constantly moving to different jobs, the issue is moot. I see the key factor being our mentality. This has to become a priority. Otherwise, we will spend time, money, and effort on other things. We have to be willing, as citizens, to help fellow citizens. We have to sacrifice a very small amount (relative to our total possessions) to provide much larger benefits to others. This idea of “win-loss” is part of the reason I don’t think we’ll ever solve this problem. People don’t want to help others if they think they will lose something (e.g. money by paying taxes). In the end, if you cut your standard of living by even 1%, you have the potential to increase someone else’s by many multiples of that. Personally, the fact that we are the richest nation in the world and still have tens of millions of citizens who live 4-5 people in a single room and STILL struggle to pay the rent is an outrage.

These are not easy problems to solve. Throwing money at cities and forcing them to build housing has been tried. The preferred solution has mostly been to ignore the problem. Neither has worked. My suggestions are meant to focus on the roots of WHY people are in situations that lead to substandard housing. We need to apply our money strategically. But mostly, we need to make this a community effort. We’re so far behind Europe when it comes to these types of things it makes my skin crawl. This country has done amazing things under pressure and has come together to accomplish them (WWII anyone?). Instead of being an issue of sacrifice, why don’t we make it a noble cause and a reason for American’s to actually be proud of America.