The minimum income needed to purchase a home in some cities today is far beyond what the average worker is earning, even a couple who both have a degree and who are both employed full-time. The struggle many young adults are going through, seniors as well, to secure affordable shelter also isn't likely because they are buying too many coffees on a daily basis either. Do they just need to work harder and get a 3rd job? Or a 4th? Is that really the humanitarian response to this crisis?

To that some might say well just move to a cheaper area but there are many regions today around Canada, the United States, and elsewhere, that we see rent prices and home prices going up and out of reach of most workers. Those who are tasked with building these residences reflect on how they themselves would never qualify for one. And for those who end up buying a small shoebox condo they will likely never be able to purchase their own land and upgrade from that first starter home.

There are many implications that come along with this and for workers who are struggling it might not be as simple as picking up and moving to an entirely new and far away area. What about those who would be leaving doctors and specialists that they've had for years? Family members? Social circles and friends etc? Exiting a career they spent years building? Leaving isn't always a convenient choice and for some they don't have the means to leave either. There is also no guarantee they could find work in another region.

They find themselves stuck.

Instead of ignoring the needs of those people why can't the market perform better in offering a wide range of creative and innovative housing solutions to meet needs today? Perhaps because the market is heavily restricted in a number of ways that make it expensive or impossible to bring a myriad of housing choices to meet those needs. Why has the market failed so miserably on one of the most important aspects of living, providing shelter? Would we see better results if there was more freedom in the housing market? With the constraints that the market has been operating under we see the results and they aren't good. Are we also seeing a reflection of an eroding purchasing power along with it? Will things ever reverse? Should full-time educated workers be found with no other option but living in tents and cars? Is that the best that the market can provide? Even then there are risks and restrictions to those 'solutions' in housing as well.

the reality

There isn't enough of a social safety net today to meet the needs that are growing, homelessness is a problem in many major cities and no one seems to be making any significant dent in turning the issue around. It's easy to ignore and say someone else needs to deal with it.

Those who cannot secure shelter are not likely to be able to plan long-term, or think about having a family, or prepare for retirement sufficiently etc, there are a number of negative consequences that can come along with a market that might be going through a housing bubble that will never seem to pop. Things are arguably much more difficult now for families than circumstances only a generation or two ago. How will things look for future generations if the prospect of adequate shelter is already out of reach for so many and continues to grow? What will cities look like with unchecked homelessness populations? How will charities and food banks survive with an ever-growing demand from those who cannot make it? It's clear that in many areas that those tasked with managing the market need to do a better job which perhaps might be arguably impossible without an injection of more freedom. Politicians who have campaigned on making things better have seen for years things go in the opposite direction. Are they incapable of ever delivering on those promises? Or are they just not trying hard enough? Have they known all along that they'd never be able to deliver?

pics:
pixabay