Rising housing prices impact all incomes

In cities with strong real estate markets, affordable housing is a big problem. And it’s not just a problem for those with lower incomes, it’s a problem for everyone. The problems aren’t even limited to just their own metro areas.

Note: in this case, the term “affordable housing” refers to the plain meaning of the word: housing that is affordable (not Affordable Housing, in reference to a set of programs designed to subsidize the cost of housing – see this from Dan Keshet on the difference, as well as a better way to think about it: abundant housing).

Expensive housing is squeezing people at all income levels

The DC Fiscal Policy Institute documented the disappearance of DC’s market-rate affordable apartments in a report: Going, Going, Gone. And while the focuses on the dramatic decline in apartments available for an inflation-adjusted $800/month between 2002 and 2013, rents are up for all incomes in that same time period – and they’ve increased faster than income growth.

DCFPI_rents1

Rising rents for those with higher incomes presents less of a challenge, since these households can afford it. But simply because higher income households can afford higher rents doesn’t they want to pay more than they have to.

It’s not just a phenomenon in DC, but in lots of strong real estate markets. Richard Florida summarizes some research from Todd Sinai at the University of Pennsylvania, noting that rents in many cities have been outpacing income gains for more than a decade. Like DC, rents are rising and requiring a larger portion of income for a wide range of income brackets:

pennrentstrends

The upward trend for each of these lines represents a larger and larger portion of household incomes spent on rent in cities across the US. Sinai suggests that any policy response would require a large increase in the supply of market-rate housing (as politically challenging as increasing housing density can be). Because even a large increase in housing units would merely moderate prices, Sinai recommends a targeted program of housing subsidies, as well.

Even with these potential remedies in mind, Sinai isn’t optimistic: “It is hard to conclude that there is an affordability cliff from whence we can step back from the brink.  Rather, the threat to housing affordability in this country is much more fundamental, and more economically pervasive.”

The higher rents are hurting the economy

It’s not just an inconvenience to pay a lot to rent an apartment, even if you can afford it. As Sinai argues, this added rental cost is “economically pervasive.” Put another way, the failure to add housing supply in strong markets is a huge drag on the economy. Kriston Capps summarizes research by Enrico Moretti and Chang-Tai Hsieh:

Hsieh and Moretti came up with a way to measure what local output and national growth would look like if wage dispersion were equalized. They proposed a model that lowered the regulatory housing constraints in New York, San Francisco, and San Jose to the level of a median city. If workers were able to cross over from low-wage cities to high-wage cities—that is, if New York, San Francisco, and San Jose were to lower barriers to new housing and let them in—then GDP could rise by 9.5 percent.

Easier said than done, but it does show the magnitude of the problem. More people would move to these productive metropolitan areas if the housing prices were more affordable.

Affordable Housing vs. affordable housing

Part of the reason to illustrate rising housing burdens for all incomes is to help define what “affordable housing” means. The plain English meaning is simply housing that is affordable. Relative to a household’s income, how much can they afford to easily pay for rent or a mortgage?

Then there is Affordable Housing (capitalized here), referring to a whole host of programs that subsidize housing for lower-income households. Labeling these subsidies under the umbrella of Affordable Housing is an effective bit of rhetoric to earn support for these programs (who would possibly be against affordable housing?) in light of the sullied reputation of public housing.

You can see the confusion in some of DC’s recent debates about the impacts of rowhouse pop-up expansions on housing prices. The DC Zoning Commission recently tightened rules on development in these zones, with one commissioner unconvinced that additional housing units would create more affordability:

But Anthony Hood, the chair of the commission, pushed for the restrictions, saying that he didn’t believe that pop-ups and condo conversions helped bring down housing prices.

“This connection to affordable housing? I’m sorry, I haven’t seen it yet. I’m still waiting for it. It’s not a reality.”

If Hood is thinking of capital-A Affordable Housing, then he’s correct. But that’s not the only meaning of the term; it’s not the only measure of affordability. And while additional market-rate housing units might not directly help lower-income households, they can make a big difference for those middle-income households feeling a squeeze.

4 thoughts on “Rising housing prices impact all incomes

  1. charlie

    Your big A vs small a affordable housing could be a useful phrase.

    Although we don’t really have a grasp on what small a affordable housing really means. — as long as housing is an asset class.

    In terms of rent, it is going up everywhere not just strong market cities. Something about the interest rates. It isn’t a supply demand issue, it is where money is flowing issue. Look at German housing prices, which is DCFPI dream rental economy. Asset prices rising.

    Also, post 2008, who can qualify for a mortgage. debt history, 1099 economy, lack of stable employment is keeping large chunks out of the mortgage market.

    In terms of young people, the new guidelines (back to 1% down on agency backed) will solve the biggest problem which is lack of equity to get in.

  2. Alex Block Post author

    I think we have a perfectly good definition of affordability – percent of income devoted to housing. The level is the question.

    Part of the challenge is that affordability is going to be relative to any one household. When trying to assess things in the aggregate, we need to look at other indicators.

    The bigger concern is the rate of change: housing prices in strong markets (both rents and sale prices) are rising faster than incomes. That’s going to have big impacts on who can afford to live in any given city, and will contribute to the sorting we’re already witnessing. Part of the reasoning behind the GDP impact of tight housing markets is that not only to the high costs keep people out of productive regions, but they also demand higher costs for all of the janitors, waiters, etc that work in those markets.

  3. charlie

    RE: rate of change, yes, more important than absolute numbers.

    I saw a report today on underwater houses — still something like 15% nationwide. I’ll see if I can find a link, but that is huge factor as well.

    Also you have to tie immigration in. In a closed system, higher costs eventualy would mean some higher wages. In an open system there are people willing to work for $6/hr and live in bunks.

Comments are closed.