 |
|
|
|||||
If theres one thing that U.S. politicians and activists from across the political spectrum can agree on, its that rents are far too high. Many experts believe that this crisis is fueled by a shortage of housing, caused principally by restrictive regulations. Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing. As experts on housing policy, were concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households. However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available. A financial sinkhole Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.? According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, its considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. Thats up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023. Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%. Estimates of the nations housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on the analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas. Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldnt fix everything. We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened rentersbut not by as much as you might think. Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomesthe households that face the most severe affordability challenges. The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened. Vouchers offer more breathing room Meanwhile, theres a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies. In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as deep housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income. These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership. The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their areas median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare, or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need. By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8. The program helps pay the rent up to a specified payment standard determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUDs physical quality standards. Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers. Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where its illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holers. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients. However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach. The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject. Homeowners get subsidieswhy not renters? Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly. The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year. However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment. For example, from 1998 through 2017prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of ones home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion. Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, more than 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000. Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state, and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs. Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administrations priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing. On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis. This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis. Alex Schwartz is a professor of urban policy at the New School. Kirk McClure is a professor of urban planning at the University of Kansas. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Amid stagnant U.S. book sales, one genre consistently goes viral: romantasy. In this episode of FC Explains, Liz Segran breaks down how Entangled Publishing is writing a new formula for success in the book world.
Category:
E-Commerce
As a manager, you’re constantly navigating the many individual differences within your team that affect performance. Some people are more analytical, others more creative. Some thrive in structured environments, while others excel when given more autonomy. But one area that dramatically impacts performance that isn’t talked about enough is chronotypethe natural biological rhythm of an individual that determines when they feel most alert, focused, and productive throughout the day. People have different chronotypessome are more focused in the morning, while others do their best work later in the day (researchers have mapped more than 80 genes that regulate circadian rhythms). But many workplaces still stick to a 9-to-5 schedule that doesn’t fit everyone. According to recent research, this circadian misalignment can lead to decreased productivity, increased stress, and even health problems. Workers who don’t fit the norm may face challenges in the workplaceyet its imperative for organizations to tap into their full contributions. As a researcher studying work-life balance and applied chronobiology, Ive discovered how chronoinclusive work cultures can improve both performance and well-being. In my work with multiple Fortune 500 companies in 17 countries, I’ve discovered three key ways that leaders can introduce the conversation around circadian rhythms and chronobiology, and ensure theyre positivelynot negativelyimpacting your team’s performance. 1. Challenge stereotypes about late risers In our culture, we venerate early risersfrom Benjamin Franklins early to bed and early to rise to bestselling books like The 5AM Club (which has sold over 15 million copies worldwide). We think theyre the serious, industrious workers. And yet: There are more late chronotypes than early chronotypes in the population. According to research, only about 30% of people are early chronotypes, while the remainder are either night owls (40%) or fall somewhere in between (30%). That means a significant portion of your team may be biologically wired to perform better later in the dayand may be disadvantaged by the early start. This early riser bias equates early arrival with traits like conscientiousness, motivation, and reliability. As a manager, its important to notice these common stereotypesand take steps to challenge them. You might ask yourself: ‘Have I inadvertently favored early starters on my team, perhaps through access to me or when important decisions are made? Does our organization equate prompt morning attendance with being leadership material? Am I less patient with team members who message me in the afternoon or evening? 2. Map chronotypes in your team Teams can improve both performance and well-being by learning when each person works best. Understanding these differences can help you plan smarter and lead more effectively. You can use a validated tool like the MorningnessEveningness Questionnaire (a 19-question self-assessment). Or, you can simply ask team members a few basic questions: If you had no meetings or responsibilities, when would you naturally start your day? When would you go to bed if you could set your own schedule? What time of day do you usually feel most focused and productive? Once you know more about your teams chronotypes, you can use this information to: Assign deep-focus tasks when each person has the most energy. Schedule collaboration during times when energy levels overlap. For example, my client Julia, the head of HR at a media organization, is a strong morning type. She wakes up naturally at 4 a.m., does her most focused work in the early hours, and starts winding down by early evening. In contrast, David, a leader in a legal association, is a late chronotype. He finds early mornings exhausting and prefers quiet, flexible starts. His peak performance happens in the afternoon and evening, when hes most alert and focused. By recognizing and working with these patternsnot against themteams can become both more productive and more balanced. 3. Foster chronoinclusive work cultures Many workplaces are unintentionally designed around early risers, who often claim prime resources. If you want to support both early risers and late chronotypesand unlock greater performance across your team: Offer flexible start times and meeting hours: Allow team members to begin their workday in alignment with their natural energy peaks. This supports better focus, fewer mistakes, and improved well-being for both morning and evening types. When teams include a mix of early birds and night owls, the best meeting time is often between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.a middle zone where most chronotypes have relatively good energy and focus. Ensure fair access to workplace resources: Be mindful that early arrivals often get first access to perks like premium desks, food options, or parking spaces. Design systems that dont unintentionally reward one chronotype over another. For example, assign desks and parking spaces, and make sure food prep and service hours match peak demand times. Lead by example: Share how you plan your own day based on when youre most alertand make it okay for others to do the same. A culture of openness starts with you. Chronotype is a critical, yet often overlooked factor in how teams perform. By recognizing biological differences in how and when people work bestand making room for that diversityleaders can reduce hidden bias, unlock untapped potential, and build more productive and inclusive teams.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||