Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Banning Hamburger: Housing Codes in America
If a liberal observes that rich people are eating steak, while poor people are eating hamburgers, the obvious solution is to ban the hamburger. It sounds silly, but if you apply this rule, for example, to the minimum wage for teenagers, it all comes into focus. It is “obvious” that people should not be underpaid — and so we must forbid low-paying jobs. Steak or bust.
Do-gooders doing evil is hardly a new phenomenon. New immigrants to the United States in 1900 could find a place to drop their heads for seven cents a night. It was not remotely nice, but it was cheap. The average hourly wage was 20 to 30 cents, meaning that a person could sleep for 20 minutes of work. Think about that: Can you imagine having a bed to sleep on for a few bucks?
In 1892: – two rooms in an attic cost $3 to $ 5 per month – three rooms (kitchen and two bedrooms) cost $6 to $12 per month – four rooms as described above cost $12 to $16 per month. source….
This tenement apartment at 340, 342 and 344 Cherry Street … opened in 1888 and boasted a laundry room and bath rooms (rooms with bath tubs) on the lower level as well as a kindergarden on the first floor. Each floor contained a WC (water closet) that was shared by two or more families. All rooms had windows, none were smaller than 10 feet by 8 feet and each apartment contained at least one room that was at least 12 feet by 12 feet. There was no dark narrow hallway, all having widows and gas light at night. Some apartments had running water. Rents were from $6 to $15 per month.
Let’s see … as compared to an average national income of $450 per worker … with only one person working, housing was $72-$180 for a year — or as low as 16 percent of a person’s income. NYC incomes were actually higher ($600 for female teachers, $900 for male teachers for example), so housing could be as low or lower, than 10 percent of one’s income.
Even in the 1940s, the average rents for apartments in New York ran about $50 per month, with housing in the Lower East Side at about $30/month. Even this is probably overstated:
The average rent on the Lower East Side in 1930 was $6 a month per room. Thus, a three-room apartment in 97 Orchard Street might have rented for about $18 per month, little more than it did in the 1870s. There were, however more than 10,000 people at the time living in rear tenements who paid as little as $2 a month per room. source.
The median income for a man in 1940s Lower East Side was $1,358, allowing him to support a family in a three-room apartment in NYC for 17 percent of his income. And that was living pretty high — the tenements offered a much cheaper option. Conclusion: Housing was very cheap for a long time.
The result? People could save. They could move upward. They invested in themselves, in tools and education. Even in homes. In 1938, a new house cost two times the average income. And these poor people did just that. Very few NYC immigrants in 1900 were still poor in 1920.
And now?
Median home values (costs) adjusted for inflation nearly quadrupled over the 60-year period since the first housing census in 1940. Today, housing costs 40 percent of a poor person’s income. That is up from 10-17 percent in 1900-1940.
What changed? Liberals banned the hamburger.
Tenements were dangerous and unhealthy. Sure, people chose to live there and save their money for other things, but we all know that people don’t know what is best for them. So we needed to enact housing codes, and then make them ever-more-stringent as the enforcers of these codes (which include tradesmen) maximized their self-interest.
In recent years, the trend is accelerating. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal said that regulatory costs are up 30 percent over the last five years alone! Regulations are in fact a huge portion of housing costs. And it is not just fire codes or strength codes; we now have water offsets, required park spaces, landscaping…
$8,000 for a new type of storm-water capture device required for each house, $3,500 for customized architectural plans required on every lot and about $15,000 to remove a tree from the property. …. New regulations included a survey required in some areas of the Midwest to determine whether endangered bats are on a property, which builders said can cost $10,000 or more for each new development. WSJ
Is it any wonder why people cannot get ahead? Why people see that working hard does not translate to climbing the prosperity ladder? There is no option for me to rent out my garage to poor people, or for people to build makeshift housing. The government would raze any such living arrangements, declaring them “unsafe.” The poor must eat steak, or go hungry.
And given that so many of these codes are actually driven more at a local level than by the Feds (I think), here is my question: Is there any viable pathway back to a regulatory structure in which people can be free to choose their own level of acceptable cost/benefit when it comes to housing? Or is hamburger never going to return to the menu?
Published in Culture, Economics
“My guess is that the best way to reverse this seemingly-inexorable metastization of regulations is to restart with a strict constitutionalist approach. The government of a breakout republic, at least at the federal level, can be limited so that it has no right dictating what people can and cannot do with their own property.”
Exactly. The Constitutional safeguards in the Fifth Amendment ” No person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” have been largely obliterated in the common practices of our government.
Early in twentieth century under the rise of Progressivism, the “Policing Powers” of government were granted by the Supreme Court the ability to ignore the 5th Amendment rights if some alleged that it was all for the “General Welfare”. This taking of property has metastasized into standard operating procedure for many government agencies .
When faced with this kind of taking, the injured citizen practically has no recourse. Filing suit is expensive and most likely a loser.
This horrible practice affects not only housing, but all our basic necessities – food, energy, insurance and health care. It is severely limiting economic growth and jobs while at the same driving up costs for businesses and the consumer alike horrendously.
In many ways, this epidemic of over-regulation is one of our most serious issues out there today, but don’t tell the Donald or Hillary- they don’t want to hear it.
One caveat – these rules only account for those that it is politically correct to harass and extort. Victor Davis Hansen has written about the disparate impact of regulatory enforcement in California, and I can testify to the same effect here in Western North Carolina. For the law abiding schmoe rules, fines and infractions are unending, but for the illegal alien trailer parks sporting cobwebs of extension cords running from jury-rigged fuse boxes to campers and out buildings parked higgly piggly there are no consequences.
Well, we can’t be racist, now, can we? The illegal aliens might get burnt to a crisp due to their creative wiring schemes, but that’s better than us imposing our culture on them. Right?
Thuggery? not necessarily:
I’ve worked in a lot of large convention centers, and the ones that installed waterless urinals always have problems with them. The smell is the first thing, and it’s a doozy, but they also clog up and generally aren’t worth it.
For that matter, low-flow toilets aren’t much better, especially in homes. Putting a low-flow system in an older home is just asking for trouble, since the underground outflow pipes were mostly designed for a minimum amount of flow to keep open.
I sold my condo in Vermont last year after I moved to Charlotte, NC. I had to spend close to $4,000 on improvements related to a new fire code inspection standard (property sold for $148,000). One of the new requirements was that any bedroom window had to have a certain higher area (window space available), and the window would swing out on an arm to the exterior. Why? In case of fire. The window’s bigger space means, well, “bigger” people can get through it, and the swing requirement is so it’s easier to get out (removes the sash constraint).
I don’t think this is a bad idea, but new windows, framing, for 2 bedrooms was a lot of money. The problem is, any new code can be more or less justified, but no one gets a vote on it. It just happens. And the cost of it is borne or the economic activity stops cold – meaning I couldn’t sell the condo without those new windows (and a host of smaller improvements).
The kicker is: The fire code was put into place after I bought the place 3 years prior, so all of the improvements were not something the prior owner had to worry about. It’s the creeping incrementalism at work.
Love the hamburger. We can’t hit this theme too much. Even most Republicans believe we need the regulations. We don’t. We need good simple transparent law, and almost no regulation at all levels of government. Regulations don’t mean what people think they mean, can’t do what people think they can, and don’t serve the interests people think they serve.
What tends to happen is that a requirement like egress windows get written into the International Building Code (revised every 3 years), and then formally adopted by states and then by local agencies.
But the really poor are better off. Now they have their own cardboard box to live in, and the rent is free.
Exactly. Well said.
Absolutely. But the windows were at least 10-15 years old. I just happened to be the lucky feller who got swacked with it.
There is a waiver application, too, but you pay for it, and are unlikely to receive it. So all the old condos that were built in the 1980s and 1990s are going to have to up-fit their windows at some serious expense.
So fat people can escape. It’s reverse Darwinism.
@chriscampion It’s also an example of the transnational nature of the administrative state, and the way in which it imposes costs. I mean, for a state or local agency not to adopt code revisions would probably result in increased insurance costs because buildings were going up noncompliant to current standards…
That said, I live in earthquake country. Building codes matter, and the knowledge about seismic reinforcement evolves. And when I was a kid, we lived in what is now called a wildland-urban interface with really poor access for fire trucks and landslides in the winter. Fortunately, the rain that caused the landslides that blocked the roads also eliminated the wildfire risk for the winter.
Homeowners who own love to see that sort of increase in value. There is a that effect too. Once I have have a house, then I am “in” the system and I want to see values go up.
Unless and until you have kids who want to own homes, too.
No [expletive.] And low flow toilets aren’t just a problem for the homeowner’s sewer pipes, either:
Water in California is a real problem. Nuclear power, desalinization….? Nah. What are you smoking?
Not a good long term strategy. Just going with how it works. “I got mine – Screw you!”