Policy debaters have a U.S./China policy resolution and Texas UIL has a Spring Lincoln-Douglas topic: RESOLVED: In matters of international trade, globalization ought to be valued above protectionism.
Last week I purchased a fire pit for a friend. It was $125 delivered by Amazon…from China. Should I have instead have tried to purchase a similar fire pit made in the U.S.A.? Well, money was an issue. “Fire Pit” wasn’t in my April budget nor in my friend’s budget. We could have dug a hole in the yard and lined it with bricks. But a portable fire pit for the patio seemed preferable.
Amazon kept part of the $124.94 to cover delivery costs, hosting item and transacting the sale. Plus Best Choice Products, a Southern California company (originally Sky Billiards) kept a slice to cover their costs and (hoped for) profits for importing this fire pit from somewhere in China.
Who is hurt when Americans buy portable fire pits or other products from China? People in China purchase iPhones and other name- brand goods from the U.S. Japan, and Europe and buy food from Kentucky Fried Chicken, Starbucks, and McDonalds. “Mapping China’s middle class,” (McKinsey & Co.) reports Chinese middle income consumers will soon expand to three-times the size of American baby-boomers:
China’s new middle class also divides into different generations, the most striking of which we call Generation 2 (G2). It comprised nearly 200 million consumers in 2012 and accounted for 15 percent of urban consumption. In ten years’ time, their share of urban consumer demand should more than double, to 35 percent. By then, G2 consumers will be almost three times as numerous as the baby-boomer population that has been shaping US consumption for years.
Economists over the last two hundred and fifty years have consistently made the case for open international trade and against policies of mercantilism and protectionism. Critics often label economists advocating international trade as pro-business or “corporate shills.”
Adam Smith argued much the opposite in “The Wealth of Nations.” Smith argued the benefits to consumers of international trade are fairly obvious: opportunities to purchase a wider variety of goods, often at lower prices. Smith
Taking a dark view of globalization is this post drawn from a recent “BBC broadcast, a ‘Dinner Party Conversation’ on the question of whether globalisation is dead?” The post offers counter arguments research arguing that international investment, trade, and migration are the reason world poverty has fallen so dramatically:
Moreover, while it is true that poverty has fallen worldwide, the phenomenon cannot be wholly attributed to financial liberalisation or globalisation, but instead to advances in e.g. medical science and scientific development. Indeed, the numbers of those living on less than $1 a day fell most rapidly, not during the period of financial globalisation, but between 1950 and 1970 according to Bourgignon and Morrison (see Our World in Data, on global extreme poverty).
This Cato Institute post, “What Globalization Isn’t,” (July 6, 2016) tried to separate out “false song globalism” from the decades of gains from market-based international trade and investment:
The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that past gains from U.S. trade and liberalization of investment range from $9,270 to $16,842 per household. Another study found that that “a 1 percent increase in trade raises real income by 0.5 percent.” Other research finds that the trade flowing from globalization has increased consumer purchasing power for middle-income households by 29 percent. As for the poor, they benefit most from the availability of low-cost goods, seeing as much as a 62 percent increase in purchasing power over what they would have in a world without trade.
Looking for downsides, the HBR article asks: “Did Trade with China Make U.S. Manufacturing Less Innovative?” (December 8, 2016). International competition can spur U.S. firms to innovate, but sometimes a cost cliff can be so steep, domestic firms just abandon markets to imports. The HBR article cites new research:
Was increased trade with China really pushing U.S. companies to become more innovative? For manufacturers, at least, they found that the answer was no. In fact, the relationship went in the opposite direction: U.S. manufacturers exposed to competition from Chinese imports became far less innovative. …
The first takeaway from this paper is that more competition, from trade or otherwise, doesn’t necessarily lead to more innovation. While competition can force firms to innovate to fend off rivals, it can also cut profit margins, leaving companies with less to invest in research and development.
So for both policy and Lincoln-Douglas debaters there are arguments, claims, and research on all sides of the globalization debate. It’s worth taking the long view though, international trade has extended for all human history and brought both benefits and costs. The Economists offers a nice overview: “When did globalisation start?” (September 23, 2013):
Some see globalisation as a good thing. According to Amartya Sen, a Nobel-Prize winning economist, globalisation “has enriched the world scientifically and culturally, and benefited many people economically as well”. …
Others disagree. Globalisation has been attacked by critics of free market economics, like the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Ha-Joon Chang, for perpetuating inequality in the world rather than reducing it.
After a discussion of economic history of global trade, The Economist takes a long view:
But it is clear that globalisation is not simply a process that started in the last two decades or even the last two centuries. It has a history that stretches thousands of years, starting with [Adam] Smith’s primitive hunter-gatherers trading with the next village, and eventually developing into the globally interconnected societies of today. Whether you think globalisation is a “good thing” or not, it appears to be an essential element of the economic history of mankind.
For LD debaters, is there a value in protecting U.S. fire pit manufacturers from global competition? With choices limited by fire pit tariffs, would people purchase a more expensive U.S. versions? Spending more on U.S. fire pits leaves consumers less to spend on other goods and services, and/or less to put aside as savings.
U.S. fire pits could be manufactured less expensively if tariffs on steel from China were lower. “China upset at high US tariffs on steel imports: Punitive tariffs announced after conclusion of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations,” (South China Morning Post, February 4, 2017):
The US Commerce Department announced earlier this week it would impose punitive tariffs ranging from 63.86 per cent to 190.71 per cent on China’s stainless steel products after concluding anti-dumping and anti-subsidy probes.
Also see “U.S. Steelmakers Press Their Luck With Price Increases,” (Wall Street Journal, April 10, 2017):
Domestic steel companies have raised prices by as much as 50% on popular types of steel in recent months. That has boosted their profits, but troubled customers who say they can’t afford the higher cost. Steel users say they are looking for cheaper alternatives from countries unaffected by the tariffs.
Prehistoric people likely brought fire and fire-making tools with them as they traveled the world. Post-historic people trade fire pits instead.
— Greg Rehmke
Lincoln-Douglas debaters already have a right to housing along with the benefits and constraints. Free housing comes with strings attached.
He (or she) who “pays the piper calls the tune.” When we turn the music up too loud, parents, siblings or both complain. In our parent’s home we can be told what to do and when to do it. We can be told not to drink or smoke. Parent housing policies are paternalistic, as expected when we live in our parent’s home.
Children and teenagers have housing rights and responsibilities provided primarily by parents, and secondarily by extended family or various local and state government housing agencies and foster care programs. And like a “right to life” that makes suicide a crime, students exiting their “right to housing” can be pursued by police and returned home.
For the March/April LD topic, students are asked to discuss and debate housing rights for the broader public:
Lincoln-Douglas Debate – 2017 Mar/Apr
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
How can affirmative debaters advocate a right to housing without creating (or expanding) a paternalistic system? Online definition of paternalism:
the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates’ supposed best interest.
“Eye on Ethics: The Challenge of Paternalism in Social Work,” (Social Work Today, January/February 2005) addresses the challenge of trying to help without exerting too much social control:
To what extent do clients have the right to engage in seemingly self-destructive courses of action? How should social workers respond … To the homeless individual who prefers sleeping in subfreezing temperatures to temporary housing in a shelter?
Such circumstances force social workers to balance their commitment to clients’ right to self-determination and their instinct to protect clients from themselves, or what moral philosophers refer to as paternalism. Paternalism occurs when social workers interfere with individuals’ right to self-determination to protect them from self-harm. The concept of paternalism has been debated at least since Aristotle’s time. Perhaps the best-known statement on paternalism appears in John Stuart Mill’s 1859 essay “On Liberty,” where he argued that individuals have the right to assert sovereignty over their own lives so long as they do not pose a threat to others.
When housing is free or subsidized, freedom to do what one wants is limited by parents, landlords, government agencies, or housing nonprofits. Consider the challenge of offering free or heavily subsidized housing to single-parent families. Society wants to help children especially, and it’s difficult for single mothers to both care for young children and work full time. A grandparent, boyfriend, or husband can make life easier, but can also abruptly end housing and other subsidies.
Housing and other benefits can create a “welfare cliff” where better wages can make families poorer. “Making Work Pay in Illinois: How Welfare Cliffs can Trap Families in Poverty,” (Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative state think tank), notes:
For single-and two-parent households in Illinois, there is a significant welfare “cliff” where the household may become worse off financially as they work more hours or as their wages increase. That is because the available welfare benefits decline by a greater amount than the increase in earned income.
This study analyzed a potential welfare benefits package for single- and two-parent households, both with two young children, in Cook, Lake and St. Clair counties. The potential means-tested benefits included tax credits, cash assistance, food assistance, housing assistance, child-care subsidies and health care.
Critical of the “welfare cliff” narrative is: “Ryan’s “Better Way” Poverty Plan Is Based On Myths From Right-Wing Media,” (MediaMatters, June 8, 2916), offering links to articles critical of claims that less state and federal benefits would incentivize and thereby help poor families. From “Federal Programs Are Working, But Growing Economic Inequality Strains The System”:
Bernstein reported that War on Poverty programs had successfully reduced poverty rates for tens of millions of Americans — especially the elderly, who were particularly susceptible to elevated poverty rates before the creation of Social Security and Medicare. He also noted that growing economic inequality — among other factors — was increasing the strain on the programs and causing poverty rates to remain artificially high, making them seem less effective than they really are.
Americans on average enjoyed tremendous economic gains through the 1950s and 1960s. The U.S. economy expanded steadily and as Social Security benefits increased for the elderly and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs launched the “War on Poverty.”
Americans on average enjoy much larger houses than in the past. How is it that housing options for today’s poor (who though poor then to be wealthier than poor people in the past), lack access to housing?
An article on “Housing” (Concise Encyclopedia of Economics) reports:
The average U.S. consumer now enjoys a larger and higher-quality home than ever before. In 2001, the average home was 1,693 square feet, while in 1960 it was less than 1,200 square feet. In 2001, 58 percent of homes had three or more bedrooms, and 57 percent had 1.5 or more bathrooms. Compare that with 1970, when fewer than half of homes had three or more bedrooms and only 30 percent had 1.5 or more bathrooms. Housing amenities have also improved.
in 1970, only 36 percent of homes had air conditioning and 11 percent had central air. Housing has improved almost across the board. … The improvement has been especially dramatic for low-income households. University of California at Berkeley professors Quigley and Raphael (2003) report that the percentage of homes occupied by the poorest one-fifth of income earners that have incomplete plumbing declined from 40 percent in 1963 to essentially zero today.
The authors argue that regulatory restriction constrain low-income housing options:
In addition to land-use restrictions, governments drive up housing prices for lower-income families by dictating improvements in housing quality that the families might not otherwise choose. Governments do this by, for example, setting minimum lot sizes. Also, the federal government’s urban renewal program between 1949 and the early 1970s destroyed more than 600,000 low-income dwellings, replacing them with 250,000 homes that were mostly for middle- and upper-income buyers (O’Sullivan 1996). Martha Burt’s 1992 study found that urban renewal’s destruction of low-quality, low-cost residential hotel rooms in U.S. central cities contributed to the rise of homelessness.
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels have mostly disappeared. “A shifting SRO scene: When the housing of last resort disappears,” (Chicago Reporter, December 27, 2013):
As housing demand accelerates on Chicago’s North Side, another trend has emerged: Single-room occupancy units are being converted into upscale hotels and apartments, pushing out longtime low-income residents who have few other housing options.
ONE Northside, an Uptown community-organizing group, estimates that 14 North Side buildings that once provided affordable housing to low-income people have been sold since 2011. That’s a net loss of around 2,205 affordable units, which are designed to cost low-income renters no more than 30 percent of their income.
San Diego and other cities have tried to reduce regulations and zone restrictions to allow new SRO hotels to enter the marketplace for low-income residents. “San Diego looks to revive SRO housing,” (Public Square, June 1, 2004):
Facing a worsening shortage of inexpensive housing, officials in San Diego are devising a plan aimed at spurring construction of tiny, single-room occupancy units known as SROs.
Susan Tinsky of the San Diego Housing Commission says development of SROs surged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. “Probably 30 to 40 developments” containing a total of 3,000 units were built, she says. The best of them became exemplars of walkable, mixed-use urban design. Though the units are small and austere, without full kitchens, and in some instances with bathrooms down the hall, the typical downtown SRO building “really fits with the historic architectural designs that already existed,” Tinsky says. “It doesn’t stand out.”
The reason San Diego SROs surged in the late 1980s and early 1990s was that special waivers were passed allow developers options to build smaller and less expensive housing (without parking and 220 volt electricity, for example).
This article from 1988 tells the story. “In San Diego, the Developers Profit As Homeless Get Low-Cost Housing,” (New York Times, September 6, 1988):
By relaxing its building codes and offering low-interest loans to builders, the city has made it profitable again for private developers to build and operate single-room occupancy hotels, S.R.O.’s, long reviled as flophouses and shut in New York and other places. Such hotels are making a comeback not only in San Diego but also in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago and other cities across the country as a remedy for the growing problem of homelessness.
”We used to say tear down S.R.O. hotels,” said Judith F. Lenthall, a senior planner for the city of San Diego. ”Now we are saying they are not so bad. This is last-rung housing. If you lose that, you are on the street.” Rents Begin At $220.
And Seattle’s later story of regulating away very small apartments: “How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing: One bad policy at a time, Seattle outlawed a smart, affordable housing option for thousands of its residents.”
SRO and micro-housing along with the tiny house movement, lower housing costs as they reduce housing space and costs. For low income people and families, small housing is better than no housing, and usually preferred to shelters and government housing.
Hotel rooms can get a lot smaller too, if local regulators allow. Consider “China’s capsule hotel: A room with no view.” (Baltimore Sun, August 12, 2013)
For 61 yuan or $10 U.S. the newly opened capsule hotel in Haikou, south China’s Hainan province, offers guests some amenities in a very small space. The hotel covering 200 square meters has 26 capsules stacked into two rows. The length and width of a single bed, the capsules are equipped with ventilating fans, flat-panel televisions, wi-fi and a foldable table.
S China’s Haikou has its first capsule hotel (China.org.cn, August 13, 2013)
Federalism is a messy political system. Every state has its own housing policy, as does every city and county. Plus the federal government runs federal housing policies, enforces federal regulations, and offers state and private housing providers various housing subsidies.
For students debating the March/April topic–Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing–the political and economic background to this value resolution is complex.
In addition to the horizontal separation of power across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, outlined in the U.S. Constitution, “federalism” refers to the vertical delegation of powers to federal, state, and local governments. Housing powers and policies were not among the powers originally delegated to the federal government, but later legislation created federal programs and departments like HUD (Housing and Urban Development).
The resolution says “The United States” ought to guarantee a “right to housing.” Online resources offering an overview and history housing rights include the National Institute for Housing, “The Case for a Right to Housing,” which discusses limited codified housing rights:
How have housing rights evolved in the United States?
Some specific, although quite limited, rights/ entitlements exist in the housing area. Local housing codes (varying enormously with respect to coverage and standards) provide something of a right to decent physical conditions. But enforcement is a problem and market realities limit the benefits these regulations offer.
An essay in The Federalist (a conservative website) argues housing inequality and lack of affordable housing should be blamed on restrictive local housing regulations. “Local Governments Are The Source Of Housing Inequality,” reports on research by Matthew Rognlie on the key role of housing costs in the inequality debate (referencing Thomas Piketty‘s Capital in the Twenty-First Century):
Matthew Rognlie, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral student in economics, dismantles Piketty in his paper, “A note on Piketty and diminishing returns to capital.” Rognlie’s contention: “Recent trends in both capital wealth and income are driven almost entirely by housing…” Ronglie deploys sarcasm with effect, suggesting Piketty’s book would have been more accurately named, “Housing in the Twenty-First Century.”
Federalism provides housing researchers an avenue to compare the impact of policies across U.S. cities, counties, and states. Scott Beyer’s “Houston, Dallas & New York City: America’s Great 3-Way Housing Supply Race,” (Forbes, March 20, 2017) argues:
…a look at the numbers shows that…housing construction (or lack thereof) seems to be the driving factor behind whether or not large U.S. metros remain affordable.
Beyer draws from Census Bureau housing data to show that fast job and population growth need not raise housing costs. Cost are way up in Seattle, San Francisco, and around the Bay Area not because of the booming job markets but instead because homebuilding is blocked or delayed. The housing story from Texas cities contrasts sharply with California cities:
Houston and Dallas are the most notable examples of where such scarcity has not occurred–in fact, it’s almost been the opposite. Between 2010 and 2015, these two metros had the most net population growth, at 736,531 and 676,582, respectively. They are also perennially among the leaders in corporate and business relocation, job growth, and wage growth. But they have the 2nd and 3rd cheapest median home prices of the 11 metros, at $176,000 and $202,000, respectively (all housing price figures are from Zillow). Atlanta–with the nation’s 5th most permits since 2010–was just under Houston at $174,000.
Even more crucially, the prices in these two Texas giants have stabilized even amid this incredible population boom–especially in Houston. …
The Center for American Progress offered “Expanding Opportunities in America’s Urban Areas” in 2015, outlines five areas for reform, including “Ensure access to quality housing and transportation” and “Expand access to affordable housing.”
Finland’s success in ending homelessness started nonprofit assistance to provide housing and rental contract rather than complex housing and homeless assistance programs. “What can the UK learn from how Finland solved homelessness?,” (theguardian, March 22,2017)
This week’s report by EU housing organisation Feantsa has found every country in the EU in the midst of a crisis of homelessness and housing exclusion – with one exception: Finland.
So how has the country done it? By giving homeless people permanent housing as soon as they become homeless, rather than muddling along with various services that may eventually result in an offer of accommodation.
Kevin Williamson, in “A Misunderstood ‘Diversity’” (National Review, March 7, 2017) quotes David Brooks from a New York Times oped:
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why so many Republicans prefer a dying white America to a place like, say, Houston.
Houston has very light zoning regulations, and as a result it has affordable housing and a culture that welcomes immigrants. This has made it incredibly diverse, with 145 languages spoken in the city’s homes, and incredibly dynamic — the fastest-growing big city in America recently. …
The large immigrant population has paradoxically given the city a very strong, very patriotic and cohesive culture, built around being welcoming to newcomers and embracing the future.
Brooks (and Williamson) note the lack of zoning allows for some ugly and jarring development, with without the complexities, delays, and litigation surrounding zoning, housing costs are low in Houston, welcoming immigrants from around the world. Families pay far less for rent or mortgages, keeping the cost of living lower.
Plus, housing the homeless is a lot less complicated and expensive in Houston. Around the country zoning regulations are used to block or delay low-cost housing as well as both public and private temporary housing for homeless people.
In “Houston’s solution to the homeless crisis: Housing — and lots of it,” (Seattle Times, June 14, 2016):
Rather than open more shelters, they focused on getting people into housing. They told charitable organizations to sign on or lose out on funding.
They built a computer system to assess the homeless, prioritize them based on vulnerability, then connect them with programs. And they collected data, lots of data.
The results are surprising and have Seattle officials taking note: There are an estimated 1,050 homeless people without shelter in the area, according to a recent count, down about 75 percent from 4,418 in 2011.
So… the Houston narrative supports the claim that restrictive housing regulations in and around major cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area, cause much of housing affordability and homelessness problems.
Against this claim is “What Housing Shortage?” (The Urbanist, November 22, 2016). The article argues there is a natural delay from employment booms to housing construction responses:
Based on the expanded survey of supply and demand in Seattle, there is virtually no general shortage of housing. The data show supply responds to demand, just not immediately. The delay is likely due to the natural lag in construction and, beginning in 2010 the effects of a global financial crisis. Not only are Seattle builders now matching new population growth with new housing units, they are building at or near the construction industry’s capacity. Skilled construction workers are hard to come by. Seattle has more cranes than any American city yet they are still in short supply.
I live just 20 minutes south of Seattle in the town of Burien. When Seattle had half the jobs it does now, nearby communities, like Green Lake, just north of Seattle, were mostly single-family homes. Now Seattle is booming, with Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstroms, many new tech firms, plus Microsoft and Boeing nearby, these communities still have single-family housing. Zoning regulations has prevented density increases that would have allowed tens of thousands to live closer to Seattle. These neighborhoods mostly have older and often run-down homes, and employees of Seattle firms face very high rents or struggle with congested commutes from distant suburbs.
“Meet the YIMBYs, Seattleites in Support of Housing Density:
A new movement is saying yes to urban density in all its forms” (November, 2016), looks at efforts to return to natural urban diversity and density policies:
By embracing the YIMBY concept, Maxana joins a growing community of activists, researchers, housing experts and community-based organizations that see growth as an opportunity to create housing for all the new people who want to live in cities, rather than a hostile invading force. These groups make up a loosely organized, informal coalition of organizations and individuals across the country and, indeed, the globe (groups using the YIMBY framework have sprung up from Melbourne to Helsinki to Iowa City), who believe that the root of housing affordability is a housing shortage, and that the solution to that shortage is simple: Build more housing.
For more on the economics of housing, see “How the Housing Market Works” (The Freeman, August 22, 2016). The author compares markets for expensive, middle, and less expensive homes to similar markets for new and used cars:
However, a family may buy a relatively run-down home and then renovate it gradually over time as they can afford to do so. Still, the less-well-off in each category could afford decent housing – especially if regulations allow old A and B housing to be divided into smaller units – in the same way that it’s possible for them to afford a decent used car.
Housing markets are similar to others, but homes last long than hamburgers. Imagine a society where rich people bought large hamburgers, ate just a third, then passed them on to others. Sounds unfair (and un-hygienic) with hamburgers, but with housing, used homes can be kept up or even improved (remodeled). If local housing demands increase, and local regulations allow, used homes can be expanded and sub-divided.
[I’m renting a small room in a single-family home in Costa Mesa, California while attending a local debate tournament. The homeowners rent two rooms via Airbnb. For $50 a night I can afford to be here. At $80 or $90 a night, the costs at local hotels, I probably couldn’t. — Greg Rehmke]
For the March/April 2017 Lincoln-Douglas Debate: “Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing,” students enter the value side of a century old debate on policies to provide access to safe and affordable housing.
Students searching for “a right to housing” quickly find supporting articles and books, such as: “The Case for a Right to Housing,” “A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda,” “Housing as a Human Right – National Low Income Housing Coalition,” “The Right to Adequate Housing” and many others.
The “right” has been written into several international standards documents and covenants and is widely supported by human rights groups.”
[Then quoting Alexander:] The human right to housing, embodied in several international treaties, declarations, and constitutions, establishes that every person has a right to adequate housing and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.
After quoting the 1949 Housing Act goal of “the implementation as soon as feasible of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family,” Everyday Debate asserts:
However, to date, the goal has never been met since there has been no serious effort by the federal government to provide the needed resources.
It’s not clear what a “serious effort” would look like, but the federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars providing low-income housing and billions more have been spent by state and local governments for housing projects and subsidies. Affirmative debaters can advocate housing rights and for far more to be spent. Mixes with city, state, and federal housing programs are the efforts NGOs (non-government agencies) like Habitat for Humanity and many other local, state, and national nonprofits. More on NGOs and private housing below.
Students find claims that governments are not doing enough for [food safety, housing, education, child care, health care, etc.] and claims by conservatives and libertarians that government is doing too much. Across the political spectrum critics insist housing policy and programs need reform.
Public Choice economists make a separate case that government programs are often subverted or “captured” by corporations and other organized interest groups. The history of housing for the poor in the U.S. illustrates the many ways local, state, and federal policies and regulations protect established interests (Section 8 landlords, housing developers, current homeowners, and some NGOs and housing agencies).
To the question of federal spending on housing for the poor, according to the Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2017, Analytical Perspectives (quoted by Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute):
Federal housing subsidies… In 2016, the federal government spent $30 billion on rental subsidies for low-income households and almost $6 billion on public housing. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2016), Table 29-1.
USGovernmentSpending.com has page on total federal welfare spending, with housing expenditures in red in the chart at right, explaining:
There are three major welfare programs: relief (or income security), housing rent subsidies, and unemployment benefits.
The US Government Spending site also offers downloads of year-by-year federal housing expenditures, shown in table here for 2000 to
2017 (in billions of dollars). This is not a claim the federal government “already spends enough” or that current programs already address “a right to housing.” And obviously federal spending on housing subsidies is a lot less than spent in 2016 on national defense ($522 billion or $598 billion).
Students can dive into debates on local, state, and federal housing programs ranging from fraud and cronyism claims for Section 8 housing to stories of local misdeeds in diverting affordable housing funds.
Three housing stories some a range of housing issues: Philadelphia: “Affordable-housing dreams become Section 8 nightmares” (July 8, 2016), Texas/nationwide: “How Housing Policy Is Failing America’s Poor: Section 8 was intended to help people escape poverty, but instead it’s trapping them in it,” and Seattle: “Anatomy of a Swindle: How a Rogue Non-profit Captured the Emerald City,” (September 13, 2016).
The notes and links above on housing policy history and spending may seem more for policy debate than LD value debaters. Students can research positive and negative rights, and the views of natural law classical liberals that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are negative rights. By negative they mean right to life and liberty should not be interfered with by others.
Every claimed right creates an obligation on the part of others not to interfere to restrict rights. A right to swing your arms freely is limited by your neighbor’s nose, and your neighbor’s right to not be hit in the nose limits your freedom of movement.
A natural right to housing would prevent others from interfering with our right to housing, and as a negative right would protect building, rent, boarding, or share a house, apartment, or room. A negative housing right would protect from neighbors or governments unjustly interfering with housing choices (though also would restrict new housing where it imposed unjust burdens on neighbors).
A positive rights claim for housing, on the other hand, creates an obligation on the part of others or government to provide housing. Negative rights claims insist others leave us alone to build, rent, or share housing as we please, but a positive rights claim call upon others to provide housing. This would create a positive obligation on the part of others or government to build, rent, or provide housing.
For much more on positive and negative rights claims for value debaters see the online collection Liberalism, Values and Lincoln-Douglas Debate, (pdf: liberalvaluesld), from “The LD/Extemp Monthly” and later debate newsletters.
We know this because of remarkable success in other major cities. The best example is probably Houston (with Harris and Fort Bend counties), where a determined mayor, Annise Parker, built a public-private campaign that has rescued 77 percent of the region’s unsheltered homeless population, reducing their numbers from 5,194 in 2007 to 1,186 as of last January.
Houston’s unsheltered homeless population is down about 75 percent since 2011, and leaders there credit their new housing-first approach.
The Atlanta Housing Authority uses even stronger language to explain its work requirement for the nondisabled: “AHA continues to believe strongly in the value, dignity, and economic independence that work provides.” In some Atlanta developments, employment rates (or enrollment in education or training) run as high as 94 percent. The Abt report also found that 20 of 34 MTW [Moving To Work] authorities are moving to change rent rules that require tenants to pay 30 percent of their incomes in rent—implying a rent increase of 30 cents for every additional dollar earned and providing an unintended incentive to move to the underground or even criminal economy.
In 2005, Utah set out to fix a problem that’s often thought of as unfixable: chronic homelessness. The state had almost two thousand chronically homeless people. Most of them had mental-health or substance-abuse issues, or both. At the time, the standard approach was to try to make homeless people “housing ready”: first, you got people into shelters or halfway houses and put them into treatment; only when they made progress could they get a chance at permanent housing. Utah, though, embraced a different strategy, called Housing First: it started by just giving the homeless homes.