House Everyone!
Housing is a human right!
Yes, you read that right: house everyone!
The United States (US) is currently in a housing crisis. As of 2024, median home prices have more than doubled in America since 1965—and that’s after adjusting for inflation (Winters, 2024)! Meanwhile, median household income has only risen by about 22% over that same period (United States Census Bureau, 2021; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2025). The results are longer commutes (people having to buy homes further away), skyrocketing rental prices (because no one can afford a home near where they work), increased private debt (mortgages, credit cards to cover income gaps), and a record number of homeless people! While there are many possible ways to mitigate these issues, there’s only one way to solve them completely: give people homes.
When I say “give people homes” I don’t mean give them a low-interest loan, a grant for a down payment, or some sort of split-payment program (the individual pays X, the government pays Y), I mean give people homes. The government should supply every adult with a place to live free of charge. We could call it something catchy like “Universal Basic Housing.” Universal Basic Income (UBI) would give everyone a check to cover their basic needs, Universal Basic Housing (UBH) would give everyone basic lodging.
I want to emphasize “basic.” I’m not saying Uncle Sam should give everyone a mansion, I’m saying every adult should be guaranteed at least a one-bedroom, one bathroom apartment. The size could be adjusted to accommodate single people with kids, married couples/families, or adults caring for other adults, but they still wouldn’t be luxury accommodations. This would give everyone a starting point from which to (if they choose) launch their careers and/or save enough to buy better homes!
Why everyone and not only homeless people? Because it works better that way. One of the reasons public housing has declined in quality here in the US is because it wasn’t offered to everyone. Since only homeless people and the very poor, people who are underrepresented in politics, had access to it, there were few people to speak out against funding cuts to Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The other reason was people who wanted to cut HUD’s funding spread propaganda racializing public housing (the same way they did/are doing with welfare) knowing white people would oppose it if they thought only Black people were benefitting from it (Chow, 2018; Stanford University, 2018). When everyone has access to it, more people are invested in maintaining it. This is why Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend remains popular across the state (Widerquist, 2024). More importantly providing everyone would homes would be more beneficial to all working-class Americans.
It would lower the costs of both homes and apartments. If everyone is guaranteed housing, paying rent/having a mortgage becomes a want instead of a need. This will lower the demand for housing, which will reduce prices. People who want more than just the basics will be better able to afford it. A side benefit of this will be lower interest rates. With fewer people needing loans, banks will need to lower interest rates to incentivize people to take them. The same goes for credit cards. Cheaper homes mean less debt (Zimmerman & Hoffman, 2024)!
UBH would improve the quality of non-government homes and apartments. Public options create choice. Free options mean anyone looking to sell homes or rent out a place to live will have to either improve their services or raise the quality of their living spaces to attract customers. Why would someone pay to live in a rundown apartment with no hot water and questionable electrical wiring when they can get a decent apartment for free? Why would someone buy a rat-infested home with foundation issues when they can have a clean, safe place to live for free?
What if the owners can’t afford to fix those properties? My first instinct is to ask why they’re trying to charge people for subpar living spaces, but I understand for some people it may be their only option. The government could purchase these properties from the owners and either repair them or bulldoze them to build better housing (discussed more later).
Guaranteed housing raises wages. Safety nets give people options. It’s easier for people to advocate for higher wages when they don’t have to worry about being homeless if their boss retaliates. This same logic can be applied to improving working conditions and combatting interpersonal issues such as sexual harassment. Like with UBI, some people will take advantage of stable housing to go back to school, take care of their children, or quit work to start their own business or project (Widerquist, 2024). With fewer people working jobs they hate just to make rent, companies will need to make those jobs more desirable. The quickest way to do this would be to raise wages.
Everyone is just safer this way. Stable housing lowers crime and helps people beat addiction—which lowers crimes even further (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2021). In the case of homeless people, it will save us money. Giving them homes is cheaper than letting them sleep on the streets (Miles, 2014; Yglesias, 2019). It will also remedy situations where people stay in unhappy and/or abusive relationships because they can’t afford to live on their own. Additionally, housing security reduces domestic violence and is gives survivors a safe space to heal (Clough et al., 2013; Austin et al., 2022; Jaleel, 2025).
How would do we do it? There are multiple ways, but I will focus on three: universal housing vouchers, buying up existing properties, and new construction.
Matthew Desmond proposed universal housing vouchers as a method of giving everyone a place to live in his book Evicted. Instead of giving people a place to live, the government would provide them with a voucher for X amount of money. For example, a voucher for $1000/month would mean the government would pay for rent up to that amount. In the book, Wisconsin provided this service to people who are qualified for the program. One advantage is it lowered the cost of housing (Desmond, 2016). Landlords would lower the price of rent to match the amount on the voucher. Most of them would rather have a guaranteed $1000 from Uncle Sam than $1200 from a renter who may not pay (Desmond, 2016). It would also require the least amount of change. Management of the houses/apartments would remain the job of the landlords (or managers) just like it now. The only difference would be the government covering rent instead of the tenant. A disadvantage is it would require money for monitoring/inspection to make sure the apartments people are living in are up to code/meet the minimum requirements established by the government. Another problem is the voucher would be dependent on how well the government is able to keep up with inflation. Giving people $1000/month for rent may work for the first couple of years, but eventually that’s not going to be enough (Minimum wage, anyone?). One way to address this is to have the voucher amount automatically adjusted for inflation. Additional adjustments in price would need to be made for areas with higher costs of living (e.g. San Francisco).
Instead of giving tenants a check and inspecting local apartments, the government could buy and maintain the apartments themselves. While this has a much higher upfront cost, it could save the government money in the long run. Private landlords still need to make a profit, meaning housing vouchers would need to be adjusted for both inflation and opportunity costs. The government doesn’t have that constraint. The government could operate public housing at a “loss” if it wanted to, providing housing at no cost and paying the necessary maintenance fees. Additionally, the government owning the apartments/housing cuts out the middle person. Instead of pressuring landlords to do repairs or upgrade housing units, the government can do it themselves. Unfortunately, this approach is far from perfect. When buying apartments and other forms of housing, the government has to work with what’s already there. As Desmond described in Evicted, and Mamdani has shown in recent videos of New York City, many of the places available are subpar. They’re moldy, have non-functions systems (e.g. no heat), or are falling apart (sometimes literally). It may be more economical for the government to bulldoze them and start over. Finally, the most obvious problem is landlords may not be willing to sell. The government can’t buy what isn’t for sale.
The government could build new. The government could purchase land and build modern living spaces designed for durability and longevity. Like buying existing housing, there is a higher upfront cost, but it has more advantages. Because the government is starting from scratch, they could design living spaces based on what’s best for the communities. This could mean designing living spaces that encourage people to meet their neighbors, like including courtyards and parks. Adding commercial spaces into these areas like miniature grocery stores to combat food deserts or dry-cleaning places for professionals requiring uniforms and suits would also be an option. Hired architects could design buildings to reduce mold accumulation and use materials less susceptible to rust and corrosion. In places known for extreme weather, they could factor this into construction (e.g. tornado shelters). Like with buying apartments, the government doesn’t have to worry about making a profit. The main disadvantage to this would be much higher upfront costs. Building something from scratch costs much more than buying something that’s already been constructed, but it might be worth it!
Personally, I believe the best solution would be mix of all three. The government should start with housing vouchers since it’s the fastest way to address the problem of housing. While providing housing vouchers, the government should focus on buying and building housing.
What about the people who already own homes? Since 1965 homeownership in America has remained between 60 – 70% (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2026). These people are the least likely to benefit from UBH because they already have better homes than what the program will offer. Additionally, it’s likely they will suffer from declining home values due to decreased demand—like what happened in 2008. What can be done about this? One solution is providing homeowners with a check to compensate them for the loss in value. They could either invest this money or apply it towards their mortgages. Homeowners could get a chance to refinance their homes based on the decreased interest rates and a reduced loan amount based on the decrease in value of their homes. The government could compensate banks for their losses in the form of tax write-offs. Even though they’re not getting housing, the government can still ensure existing homeowners benefit from UBH!
Last but not least, I want to address an argument that keeps coming up in discussions about homelessness: what about the people who choose to be homeless? Okay, what about them? This demographic only represents less than 20% of homeless people, and most of the people who would benefit from UBH are not homeless anyway (Bowers, 2019). Depending on the reasons they want to be homeless, alternative arrangements could be made for them. Maybe they want to be part of a camp on a piece of land, for example. We can’t force them to be housed if they don’t want to, but we can still provide housing for everyone else in the country!
Sources:
Austin, A. E., Durrance, C. P., Runyan, C. W., Runyan, D. K., Martin, S. L., Mercer, J., & Shanahan, M. E. (2022). Affordable housing through the low-income housing tax credit program and intimate partner violence-related homicide. Preventive Medicine, 155, 106950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106950
Bowers, C. (2019, November 17). Myth #2: People choose to be homeless and most decline services when offered. United To End Homelessness. https://unitedtoendhomelessness.org/blog/myth-people-choose-to-be-homeless-and-most-decline-services-when-offered/
Chow, K. (2018, June 8). Why more white Americans are opposing government welfare programs. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/06/08/616684259/why-more-white-americans-are-opposing-government-welfare-programs
Clough, A., Draughon, J. E., Njie-Carr, V., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. (2013). ‘having housing made everything else possible’: Affordable, safe and stable housing for women survivors of violence. Qualitative Social Work, 13(5), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013503003
Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted. Crown/Archetype.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2025, September 9). Real Median Household Income in the United States. FRED. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2026, April 28). Homeownership Rate in the United States. FRED. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Jaleel, S. (2025, October 24). Turning housing into freedom: How affordable housing can empower survivors of domestic violence. Housing Up. https://housingup.org/2025/10/24/turning-housing-into-freedom-how-affordable-housing-can-empower-survivors-of-domestic-violence/
Miles, K. (2014, March 25). Housing the homeless not only saves lives - it’s actually cheaper than doing nothing. NOEMA. https://www.noemamag.com/housing-the-homeless-not-only-saves-lives-its-actually-cheaper-than-doing-nothing/
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2021, July 12). New Study Finds that Providing People Experiencing Homelessness with Housing has Positive Impacts on Health, Crime, and Employment. National Low Income Housing Coalition. https://nlihc.org/resource/new-study-finds-providing-people-experiencing-homelessness-housing-has-positive-impacts
Stanford University. (2018, May 31). Perceived threat to racial status leads to opposition of welfare among white Americans, Stanford sociologist finds. Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/05/welfare-opposition-linked-threats-racial-standing
United States Census Bureau. (2021, October 8). Income in 1965 of families and persons in the United States. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1967/demo/p60-051.html
Widerquist, K. (2024). Universal Basic Income. The MIT Press.
Winters, M. (2024, May 13). Here’s how much housing prices have skyrocketed over the last 50 years. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/13/how-much-more-expensive-homes-are-since-1965.html
Yglesias, M. (2019, February 20). The most cost-effective way to help the homeless is to give them homes. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housing-help-solutions
Zimmerman, R., & Hoffman, L. (2024, July 24). Increasingly debt-strapped consumers concerned about rising housing-related costs. Fannie Mae. https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/increasingly-debt-strapped-consumers-concerned-about-rising-housing-related-costs
Enjoying my content?