Housing is a Human Sustainability Issue

Introduction

According to the Global Real House Price Index (International Monetary Fund, 2022), global housing prices have increased by nearly 80 percent in the past 20 years. Among the 38 countries that comprise the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which also account for over 40 percent of global GDP (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024, para. 2), housing costs have become a burden to a growing proportion of the population. Related, the rise of income polarization has translated to housing being a significant concern for a seemingly growing category of low-income earners (Pew Research Center, 2020, para. 2). Across the OECD, it is estimated that, one in three low-income tenant households spend over 40 percent of their disposable income on rent and one in four low-income homeowners with a mortgage loan are overburdened (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, n.d.). Thus, homeownership along with a growing income divide is indicative of a larger systemic problem.

The struggle for homeownership or even a place to count on as home has social impacts (Habitat for Humanity, 2024, para. 1). Studies suggest that homeownership does affect educational outcomes (Whelan, 2017, para. 8). Stronger positive correlations are noted primarily in areas having higher average home prices (Gaitán, 2018). However, other positive correlations exist such as increasing consumer spending, job creation, economic mobility, and community stability and development (Wardrip, Williams, & Hague, 2011). These factors help create sustainability within communities and may contribute to social cohesion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2024), but again, they are directly tied to income, with homeownership being an outcome rather than a driver. This highlights that though the increased economic burden of housing expense is a valid social concern perhaps it is limiting to address housing in isolation.

Consistent income and a living wage that accounts for a quality living environment and public education access appear to be highly correlated. Their relationship signifies that location may determine outcomes irrespective of ownership status (Bauer et al., 2018). For example, in the United States where public services are tied to zip plus four location, it is not enough to just own a home, but a home generally must be in an area that generates sufficient property taxes to ensure infrastructure and education quality. Additionally, higher incomes affect election donations and voter participation, which in turn can generate the benefits associated with political visibility (Huijsmans et al., 2022). Evidence supports that poor communities have limited economic mobility ensuring their disenfranchisement and this is evident in the United States, specific to Blacks (Blessett, 2015).

Racialized Home Insecurity

Given the history and legacy of racial discrimination and segregation in the United States, Blacks provide an accessible example of the holistic impact of poverty. In the present period, Blacks continue to have racially disproportionate poverty rates (see Table 1).

Educational attainment levels and wealth, along with intergenerational access to both has affected the prevailing wealth gap between Blacks and Whites (Gross, 2017; U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2022). The outcome, Blacks are not just more likely to be poor, but they are also more likely to be homeless (see Table 2).

The characterization as the United States as the “richest nation,” appears inconsistent with the evidence of increasing housing insecurity, unless a threshold income is the basis for social inclusion. This commentary addresses how de facto social exclusion based on income may affect long-term societal sustainability.

Marginalization and Housing Access in the United States

In 1933, 68 years after the emancipation of slaves, the federal government began a program to address the nation’s shortage of housing under the New Deal (Gross, 2017, para. 1). However, the housing plans laid the foundation for segregated communities. The government only intended to benefit White, middle-class, and lower-middle-class families through the creation of suburban communities which resulted in Blacks and other people of color being disproportionately living into urban housing projects (Tate, 2017, paras. 5–6). Next, after the establishment of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in 1934, segregation policies continued through a process referred to as “redlining”—drawing a red line around Black communities to eliminate their access to loans and insurance (Gross, 2017, para. 7).

Affordable housing took off in America with the introduction of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill) in 1944 which was passed to support the 16 million Americans who served during World War II. It offered veterans money to go to college, start businesses, and buy homes. The introduction of the GI Bill overall increased rates of homeownership from 43.65 to 61.9 percent (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1994, para. 4). Government-led initiatives such as the creation of the FHA and Veterans Administration made homeownership more attainable. For instance, the GI Bill provided home loans that required no money down for veterans at lower mortgage rates (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2024, para. 4). These social programs helped people—almost all of them White—afford houses that otherwise would not have been able to. For Black veterans, redlining made purchasing a home difficult for Black veterans (Gross, 2017, para. 3).

Since 1960, homeownership has remained between 61 and 65 percent (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1994). In the 1940s and 1950s, a sharp rise in median wages came at the same time as the highest increase in homeownership that had been seen in the entire 20th century (Collins & Niemesh, 2023, p. 1). This sharp rise in homeownership rates helped lead to a rise of the middle class in America during this period. In the 1990s, there was a low-income homeownership boom that saw low-income minority owners account for nearly 11 percent of the net growth in owners (Duda & Belsky, 2001, p. 1). The 2008 Housing Crisis then led to mass foreclosures of 2,330,483 or 1.8 percent of all homes (Pew Research Center, 2009, para. 1). This led to a decline in homeownership rates that has not recovered to prerecession levels. Black homeownership in particular dropped more than two percentage points from 2000 to 2010, with a five percent additional decline after 2010 (Urban Institute, n.d., para. 5).

In the 2008 financial crisis, over 80 percent of subprime loans were adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) (Zhao, n.d., para. 3). These subprime loans were targeted primarily to minorities. Black borrowers were 1.6 times more likely to receive subprime loans compared with White borrowers and 1.5 times more likely to receive ARMs compared with White borrowers (Gruenstein Bocian, 2012, Fig. 8). These rates led to much higher foreclosure rates and led to far more Black borrowers losing their homes compared to White counterparts. A lack of financial education also heavily ties into the discussion. In a survey from 2004, it was found that Americans who preferred ARMs were on average: “younger, poorer, and less well educated.” (Gillis, 2004, para. 15).

Social Impacts of Housing Vulnerability

Currently, the two major contributors to the housing and homelessness crises are noted to be a lack of low-cost housing nationwide and the limited scale of housing assistance programs. But the reality is housing insecurity and homelessness is an income issue.

Nationally, the cost of rental housing greatly exceeds wages earned by low-income renter households. For example, a full-time worker needs to earn an average $25.82 per hour to afford a modest two-bedroom rental and $21.21 hourly to afford a one-bedroom rental (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2024). However, the national minimum wage is only $7.25! Housing is not only out of reach for minimum wage earners. The 2022 housing wage is far higher than the median hourly rate earned by customer service workers ($17.75), nursing assistants ($14.57), maintenance and repair workers ($20.76), home health aides ($14.15), retail workers ($14.03), and many others in the workforce (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2023). Poverty and housing security are inextricably linked.

The United Nations has addressed poverty as being the most significant impediment to the attainment of sustainability and as a result no poverty is sustainable development goal 1. In the United States, the $2.15 per day threshold is likely reached among the poor and the amount does not offer a solution. Instead, alleviating poverty through a localized living wage that allows for homeownership inclusive of public services is essential. A localized living wage provides access to full participation in the community. It allows the recipient to purchase healthy choices and is in turn, associated with improved physical and mental health (Bhatia & Katz, 2001). Quality housing from this perspective provides a sense of inclusion in a community and reduces diseases correlated with improper sanitation and substandard building structures (Krieger & Higgins, 2002). Coupled these two attributes have intergenerational impacts that may promote social cohesiveness and promote community resilience (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2024, para. 6).

In addressing housing insecurity alone or in isolation, it becomes evident that curing the symptom is not equatable to eliminating the disease. In fact, without addressing income, providing housing may only exacerbate marginalization of the poor as not in my backyard fears are realized when affordable and low-income housing recipients are unable to afford the maintenance and upkeep related to provided housing. Purposeful or even socially contributing employment, along with a living wage able to provide housing, food, shelter, and maintenance, as well as savings; is a needed objective to reintegrate the poor into the broader economy that they have been displaced from. The reason for the lack of holistic initiatives in addressing poverty perhaps should be a focus of poverty remediation programs. Without eliminating existing bias, implementation of rules of fairness will be limited and loopholes will be sought in order to maintain preestablished social norms of marginalization. In the United States, the examples with respect to Black marginalization are numerous and include Jim Crow laws and cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson.

Funding Information

There was no funding for this article.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.