There was a time when the US government built homes for working-class Americans
Rising housing costs and chronic shortages are framed as a root cause of many modern social and economic problems, from labor immobility and inequality to political resentment. Commenters contrast earlier eras when governments and even companies directly built large amounts of worker housing with today’s regime of restrictive zoning, “vetocracy,” and treating homes as primary investment assets for older voters. While some argue that massive public or high‑density construction near jobs could relieve pressures, others highlight structural barriers, intergenerational wealth interests, and fears about overdevelopment, suggesting that meaningful reform faces steep political resistance.
Housing as Root Problem (“Housing Theory of Everything”)
- Several commenters argue that cheap, abundant housing would relieve a large share of social ills: financial stress, labor immobility, inequality, and political extremism.
- Others counter that housing is only one symptom of deeper issues (capital allocation, power, wages) and that “most” problems won’t be solved by housing alone.
- Some emphasize that it’s not just units but where they’re built: high‑density housing near jobs and services is seen as key to reducing transport costs, emissions, and infrastructure burdens.
Housing as Asset, Ponzi Dynamics, and Generational Conflict
- Many see current systems as a “housing Ponzi”: rising prices transfer wealth from young to old, and political majorities (especially homeowners) have strong incentives to preserve scarcity.
- Commenters note that for most middle and upper‑middle classes, home equity is their primary “retirement plan,” so policies that cut prices are politically toxic.
- Others argue that if high prices rest on unsustainable assumptions, letting the “Ponzi” deflate is necessary, even if painful.
Supply, Zoning, and NIMBYism
- Strong consensus that governments, especially cities, heavily restrict new housing via zoning, permitting, and legal veto points (“vetocracy”).
- Local homeowners often support housing “in general” but fight it locally, forming de facto cartels to restrict supply and protect values.
- Some highlight quality issues: rushed private developments can be shoddy or unsafe, yet still expensive.
International and Historical Comparisons
- Canada, Germany, Ireland, the UK, and US bubbles are cited. Patterns: big postwar/state building phases, then policy shifts that curtailed public housing and restricted supply.
- Ireland’s crisis is debated: earlier bubble seen as speculative; current shortage is framed as genuine supply‑side, worsened by lost construction capacity after the crash.
- UK council housing and some US projects are cited as cautionary tales: large public estates can decay into high‑crime areas if jobs, services, and management are lacking.
Decommodification, Scarcity, and Population
- Some advocate decommodifying housing as a right; critics argue that removing price signals worsens shortages.
- A long subthread debates whether human “wants” are effectively unlimited and whether meeting basic needs triggers runaway population growth; others point to demographic transition and falling fertility as counter‑evidence.
Government-Built Housing Today: Scale and Feasibility
- Commenters note that historic federal housing efforts were politically normal but limited in scale compared to current annual private completions.
- Skeptics stress administrative and legal barriers now far higher than mid‑20th‑century, plus fiscal realities: past per‑unit costs translated to today’s prices look politically unrealistic.
- Supporters reply that much scarcity is artificial; large public or publicly enabled building programs, especially dense and near jobs, remain the clearest path to affordability.