People park them in Washington DC (known for being a difficult housing situation even if, like Hanover, you have a job.) Could people do that where you live? — Mongrel

Not for free. You wouldn't be able to legally park them anywhere you like. And I know from recent local events, which were frequently reported in the local paper at the time, involving a group of travellers who illegally parked their caravans around the town, that there aren't enough such places in town or nearby.

I'd solve this issue by completely overhauling our economic and social structure. Of course, that's not easy to do, it's not likely to happen any time soon, and the specifics re what I'd institute instead are very unlikely to ever come to fruition anyway, because whenever I've explained it in any detail, I never get anyone saying, "Geez, yeah--that sounds like a great idea. Let's see what we can do to put it into action!"

How to solve this issue under anything like our current economic and social structure is difficult. I'd have to think about it a lot more. It's worth thinking about, though, because I agree it's a pressing issue.

What always gets me is how there are so many people who can afford such expensive real estate. For example, I'm in New York City. Metro NYC real estate prices are crazy--with the "raw" cost of real estate here + property taxes + quite often maintenance fees, parking fees, monthly transportation costs, etc., it's mind-boggling to consider how so many people can afford living anywhere within about 60 miles of NYC proper.

And of course when you go to places that are far more affordable, it always bewilders me how people manage to live there, too--since there typically aren't many jobs, and especially not many high-paying jobs, in those locales. For example, pick a random spot in, say, Utah, anywhere outside of the Provo/Salt Lake/Ogden coridor along I-15. How do people manage to live someplace like Salina (Utah), or Kanab, or even Moab? Where the heck would they work?

A way of helping recipients budget? Are you fucking kidding me? They need to get their priorities straight, and the sooner the better. They've made a right mess of it. — Sapientia

One difficulty in getting political traction here is that 'they' include both Conservatives and originally New Labour.

You are right: There is no satisfactory solution within our "economic and social structure" as it has existed, and is likely to continue to exist. Mostly what we can do is tinker a bit with the mechanics of the system in such a way as to not annoy wealthier people too much. Wealthier people have a fairly long list of annoyances.

At least minimally adequate housing, health care, education, food, water, and clothing (the necessities) ought to be treated as rights, and not perquisites or privileges. But, alas, we don't live in such a world.

Terminology:

• mobile home: a complete house built on a heavy frame that can be towed to any location. These can be single wide (typical flat-roof trailer) or double wide (two halves bolted together, side by side, hipped roof). Generally intended to be moved only once.
• prefabricated home: the parts of a complete house loaded onto a flatbed and trucked to its destination. These can be 1 or 2 story houses with attics and basements.
• Prefabricated apartment buildings: Large buildings assembled from prefabricated parts. (Adequate engineering is essential. Some units built in GB after WWII collapsed for being inadequately engineered.)
• tiny home: a very small trailer, less that 100 sq. feet (maybe much less). Fresh water and waste is a problem.
• emergency shelter: a lightly built, somewhat flimsy "camper shelter" used as part of disaster relief, not intended for long-term use.
• Recreational vehicles: self-powered mobile homes. Very fuel inefficient, but adequate space for 1 or 2 people--not intended for fixed location.

Mobile homes, for instance, are considered the province of white trash--for no good reason. Manufactured housing is affordable and is at least adequate. However, if your city zones them into the least attractive part of town, and the mobile park operator basically puts everyone's trailers in one big gravel parking lot, the benefit of mobile housing will be devalued. Mobile and or prefabricated housing is a ready solution on the supply end. If mobile home parks receive the benefit of tree-planting and landscaping, they don't have to look like instant slums.

One difficulty in getting political traction here is that 'they' include both Conservatives and originally New Labour. — mcdoodle

Yes, I know. I'm no fan of New Labour. That change, the LHA, was introduced in 2008 under a Labour government lead by the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. But the Labour Party has moved on from the New Labour era.

It seems the problem is the government, having severely limited the construction of new homes, thus making demand high and supply low and thereby creating increased prices.

The other solution is to get a better job. I know it sounds so American of me, but when there's a problem, how about looking within for the solution instead of asking for help. — Hanover

The number one problem is letting banks freely manufacture credit - ie: debt. That is the fuel that drives the speculative bubble.

Then you have the political settings that encourage general speculation in an unproductive asset.

Down the list is constraint on land supply. If this were the critical problem, people wouldn't see ex-urban McMansions and prime beachfront as such great "investments". Small and safe properties would be in higher demand.

affordable housing — Sapientia

Good luck. Have you considered lowering housing costs by pooling resources with compatible people? It's definitely not everybody's nice cuppa tea, but it might be a step up. Something sort of communal, but not slovenly...?

I feel your pain. McDoodle's suggestion of moving to a cheaper county might be a good idea too -- but where life is cheaper is often where the means of support are diminished.

Good work and good housing (that is, living in a place where you feel glad to go at the end of the day and where you like your mates) and those two things not being too far apart make for a happier life. Is 1 room of one's own enough for now?

I wish you luck. There are a lot of cities in the world, Metro London, Metro New York, San Francisco etc. where people are driven into the outer suburbs to find places they can afford, then they spend hours and cash commuting -- 2+ hours a day commuting is a significant subtraction from life.

when there's a problem, how about looking within for the solution instead of asking for help — Hanover

What's that song, "We all need some body to lean on"?

If finding affordable housing was such a no-brainer, your approach might make some sense. Your comment would be appropriate for me: I have assets and resources. Young, unestablished people haven't or can't accumulate the assets and income that it takes to just go out and find a nice place to live. It isn't just the monthly rent. Many landlords want the first and last month, (and maybe a damage deposit) in advance. That requires a chunk of change, and 30 days later another rent check is due. If you don't have substantial cash on hand, up-front expenses are a real problem.

I bought a house last December, not the nicest house in the world, and an hour from town (meaning that I could pay most of your mortgages with what I spend on gas a month), but four bedrooms, two washrooms nice Jacuzzi tub in one, and shower stall in the other. I have a lot of work to do on it, but it's been great so far. Also have a two car garage and two sheds! All filled with junk! Precious precious junk.

My sister and her three kids moved in with me a couple of months ago, so I've been super busy with that, along with my dad whom has lived with me for about a year and a half now.

I showed up here with a back pack and 300 dollars three years ago. I have a job were the actual work and skill done determines your pay by a small business owner, with only the four employees. I am not this point the de facto boss (like a boss) as I'm the most senior person that's actually there, and I'm the one that actually does the work. I usually work from 9 till 3, and make between 300 and 600 dollars a day. I can do 60 bundles tear off prep and shingle (not my self, but any one else only saves me at max an hour a day) in 6 hours, and I'm satisfied with that. I work too hard to maintain that level of productivity for much longer than six hours. So, the longer the day goes on the less it becomes worth my time, plus I'm driving between three and three and a half hours a day, so I don't want to work too late. I have of course, on occasion worked till like 7:30 to do 100 bundle houses in a day, which the boss that gets the jobs would like me to do everyday, but fuck him.

I hardly achieved it all my self though, I had a lot of help. Someone taught me it, and got me into it, and supported me when I got started, and continues to help me a whole lot, and be just a fantastic human being to me, and I of course could never repay what they've done for me, which allowed me to get established, and help my family.

Hey congratulations, that's an achievement. If it wasn't for my spouse I'd probably still be living in rental accommodation myself.

I had many years of failure, desperation, inability to cover necessities, and support my loved ones when they were counting on me. That sort of failure I would prefer any other imaginable torment to. Not any more though, and I have higher goals, I have a big family. I'm going to save them all.

You can't live for yourself, that's where emptiness is, there's nothing there to live for.

Wasn't Royston Vasey set near there? (Sorry couldn't help it). My folks come from Huddersfield, I know that part of the world well, beautiful countryside.

I managed to escape the impossible housing market in Edinburgh and go house-sitting, which is not so much a rejection of the property market as a kind of parasitism upon it. It's only possible because I can work from anywhere with an internet connection, and because I have no dependants. On the one hand, I'm a rootless itinerant, unsure of what "home" means, with no savings, completely relying on the success of my current venture to ensure a comfortable future. On the other hand, I get to live in great houses and places for free. I recommend it (but not as a solution to the housing crisis, of course).

Great to hear, Woz.

I recommend it — Jamalrob

...'in passing' ;-)

So, even if I got a better paid job, the problem wouldn't go away, it would just go away for me - after a successful application, that is. — Sapientia

You do make a valid point here, which is that your resolving your problem won't resolve the overall problem. I will say, though, that a major part of the public assistance problem is that many (maybe you, maybe not) do not do all they can for themselves but instead find public assistance (which would include housing subsidies) an easier way out and a disincentive to self sustain. As I've noted, I have little problem providing for those who truly can't provide for themselves, but once those who really don't need the help start requesting it, everyone suffers because the resource is limited. What then happens is that there are demands that the rich give more, which is certainly something I've read on this board.

And so while I can't resolve THE problem, I do think it's reasonable to resolve the best I can one person at a time, with the understanding that eventually there'll be some that really need aid and then we can deal with them one person at a time.

Problems finding affordable housing usually occur in very high demand areas. Taking Atlanta as an example, if you want to live in the gentrified intown areas or the traditionally high rent areas, you're not going to find affordable housing. There is, though, plenty of affordable housing not terribly far from the city that is on the public transportation system. Of course, what holds for Atlanta does not hold for Manhattan or San Francisco and probably not many European cities that are densely populated and have limited land they're willing to develop. The solution from a free market perspective (which I would advocate) would be to increase supply, which would mean allowing greater development of currently undeveloped land.

It can't be resolved. Simple economics. Demand outstrips supply both buying and renting. Builders and letters must make a profit. Housing associations and councils must at least cover costs. Building 'affordable homes' is a fool's solution because they will simply be used as a foot on the ladder in exactly the same way that council houses were when they became subject to right to buy. Forcing rents down will simply lead to landlords abandoning the market. These are the inevitable consequences of growth economics and population increase.

So, at $450 a day average, you're pulling in over $110,000 per year roofing houses. That is an amazing achievement, and something to be proud of. If sister and dad contribute at some point, you'll even be in a better situation.

I know you feel a great obligation for your fam, and that is admirable. I suspect at some point our young and now over-producing Wosret is going to find himself someone special and how extended family fits into this picture will be a challenge, but that's the next chapter of this journey.

Populations have been stable though in Europe, so I don't know if that's a major part of the problem.

I can say that housing costs dropped dramatically when the housing bubble burst and there remain large areas where investors bought up homes and turned them into low rent rentals. Low rent housing is not attractive economically for many reasons: poor schools, transient neighbors, high crime, etc. It's not as if people are living in the street for lack of housing, but it's that poor housing sucks and no one wants to live there. It's less a question of finding affordable housing than it is in finding quality affordable housing.

The problem of affordable housing is not a problem one person can resolve with self sufficiency.

The problem is that the pace of housing development is not at equilibrium with the pace of population growth.
In fact in the youtube vid I posted the current rate of housing development in the UK is about half the rate of current population growth.
If this is true then all of the UK will be a "high demand area."

No one person can produce a solution to that problem simply from being self reliant it will require a concerted effort of many people.

Sometimes when all you have is a hammer it begins to seem as though every problem is a nail.
But in this case the problem is not the result of a lack of self sufficiency so self reliance will not be how the solution is applied.

The problem is that the pace of housing development is not at equilibrium with the pace of population growth. — m-theory

That may be the case in the UK, but it's certainly not the case where I live. In fact, when the housing bubble burst, many homes remained unsold. Supply was way beyond demand. I realize that the Atlanta market is not representative of the world. It is likely that European land use regulations limit housing significantly and that is causing the problem.

I found a variety of lovely castles in Edinburgh for sale. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Edinburgh/houses.html/svr/3107;jsessionid=968B82BD29BE271F20BBAE3899EF3229

There actually was one townhouse on the first page that looks fairly reasonable in light of where it was. The prices weren't too dissimilar for what you'd find around where I live, although we have very few castles, considering our lack of kings and princes.

Well there are several factors that will contribute to the problem.
One is population growth compared to supply development (in the west there is has been a increasing trend for population growth to outpace housing development).
One is the rate of inflation of housing (the ratio of yearly income compare to the cost of housing has been growing wider and wider for several decades).
And one is living styles (the amount of people living in a single household is trending down which is a further strain on supply relative to demand).

All the bubble bust did was serve to readjust the inflation of housing relative to yearly income.
There still is a significant disparity between average housing cost compared to average yearly income (property inflation is has increased about 4000% in the UK since the early 70s)
And the reason for this is in part due to the supply/demand ratio.

The typical policy solution is to ease credit and lend money to more people, but that is what contributed to the bubble in the first place.
If the supply is less than the demand throwing more money at that problem just increases the pricing.
So eventually the bottom fell out when the bubble burst.
The reason people did not immediately buy up supply was because there was also a major credit crunch that came with bust.

Several decades ago a person could spend anywhere from two to three times their annual income to buy property and so giving a loan was more reasonable for the creditors..
But even after the housing market bubble burst the cost of typical home was still many more times than average yearly salary and on top of that credit was tight for consumers, while large institutions were essentially given interest free loans..
So that is why large institutions were able to snap up the supply rather than consumers.

I agree that simply subsidizing or easing credit does not really address the issue of supply compared to demand and will in fact contribute to an increase in pricing.
So a solution for the UK would have to be to incentivise more development.

You have done well. Congratulations! But... 2 things:

You are only 1 (just 1) injury away from months of unemployment. If it is available, and it might be available--look and see--invest some of your earnings in a private disability insurance policy. Even if Canada has a state disability programs, the more protection your income has the better.

These private policies won't replace the amount of your earnings, but they could keep your fairly full boat afloat should you break a leg. Having some extra income during the time you can't work could save your house.

I can't remember... are you saving money? If not, start. Now is the time. Money in the bank can solve a lot of small problems that would otherwise snowball into big problems. Are your worthy and deserving relatives contributing to the cost of the household (like, through benefits of some kind or work)? If not, they should be doing something.

I hope you can keep up the pace for quite a long time -- just because that will mean you're still healthy and going strong, but be extra careful. We all want you to have a long good life.

One of the things that haven't been mentioned (as far as I know) is mobility (not referencing disability here). While it is true there are jobs going unfilled, and there is affordable housing available, the two are often at an impractical distance apart. The problem of "immobility" is generally invisible to those who have cars or very good transit systems available.

If you can't get between jobs and affordable housing, then they might as well not exist. For example, North Minneapolis has affordable housing, thanks to white flight several decades ago. A number of suburbs have job opportunities not available in North Minneapolis. It isn't laziness that prevents fairly poor people from getting between the two: It is lack of a car and zero workable transit. Commuter bus lines bring thousands of white white collar employees into the center city in the morning, and return them to the suburbs in the late afternoon. There is no center-city-to-suburb-and-back transit during the day or past the early evening rush hour. Sometimes there is "tenuous transit" -- 1 bus line connecting to another line once each hour, and another connecting once an hour. This kind of schedule is just not workable on a day in day out - years long basis.

It isn't that suburb-to-suburb, town-to-town and round-trip transit can't be arranged, but it is expensive, and takes a long time to amortize. In addition, many white suburbs are not anxious to be conveniently connected to poor parts of the central city.

A much-studied, long-planned light rail line between Minneapolis and a western outer suburb will cost about $2 billion, and just about every foot of the distance has been contested by some local interest that views it as a nuisance.

Good luck. Have you considered lowering housing costs by pooling resources with compatible people? It's definitely not everybody's nice cuppa tea, but it might be a step up. Something sort of communal, but not slovenly...? — Bitter Crank

Like a shared house? Yes, I've considered that and decided against it. I've lived in a shared house before, and I'd rather not go back to that. I did try to persuade a good friend of mine to share a two bedroom flat, which would be more affordable than having a one bedroom flat or studio apartment to myself, but she didn't want to do so in the town in which I live, and that's non-negotiable for me. But I'd rather just have a place to myself anyway. The situation isn't so dire that that's not an option.

I feel your pain. McDoodle's suggestion of moving to a cheaper county might be a good idea too -- but where life is cheaper is often where the means of support are diminished. — Bitter Crank

I'm not going to move county, nor town, nor even outside of a distance too far for me to walk to and from my workplace. I don't drive, and public transport is an extra cost I'd rather avoid. It's cheaper and more convenient to be close to where I work. And I like my current job, and I quite like this town, and my closest friends live nearby, and so on and so forth. So, no.

Is 1 room of one's own enough for now? — Bitter Crank

Well, no, not really. But it depends what you mean by "now".

I currently spend most of my time when I'm at home in my own room in a house with two other family members. And that has been the case for years. There were and are great personal benefits to that - I pay no rent. But is that enough? No, that's not enough. Obviously not, otherwise I wouldn't be looking to move out. It will just have to do until I find somewhere better.

One room in a shared house? No, that wouldn't be enough either. I want more privacy and more space than that, and that is achievable, so I don't plan on settling for less. Been there, done that.

Thanks for wishing me luck.

...when there's a problem, how about looking within for the solution instead of asking for help. — Hanover

Going back to this...

I'm not exactly asking for help. But how about, when something is set up to help people, it should actually help people. And if help is available, why shouldn't I take advantage of it? I don't mean exploit it, but rather use it the way that it was intended to be used, to my advantage. That's just good sense.

Thanks for wishing me luck. — Sapientia

You are welcome. Unfortunately, wishing you luck is the most I can do.

I've had a couple of jobs where I could walk to work. That is a vastly preferable arrangement to even being able to ride a bike to work (even if the weather is tolerable). One winter I biked back and forth about 10 miles between a job that ended about 10 in the evening; the rides were peacefully quiet with little traffic, but some days were pretty cold, and that was a mild winter. One generates a lot of heat biking, but not that much.

I understand. Solitude and enough room to cook, read, play games, have company over, sleep, and such are essentials. Is solitude or company more important? It's a coin toss.

I moved a lot over the years after college; I was restless. Finally in 1995 we bought a house (our first, we were in our 50s). It was nice at last to be rid of the problems of the shared spaces of apartment buildings. True, I have to mow the lawn, clean the eaves troughs out twice a year, keep the raspberries under control, shovel snow off the walks, etc. but all that is good exercise for an old folk. Plus I have been destroying my lawn with raspberry bushes, service berry, phlox (perennial flowers), day lilies, milk weed, and any other moderately attractive weed, so there is less and less lawn to mow.

I hope that my next move is to the cemetery, with no intervening stop at a nursing home.

Living with family... for most of my semi-senile-siblings, living with them would probably speed up the trip to the cemetery considerably. Me or them, maybe both.

People are, indeed, entitled to use entitlements, or benefit from benefit programs if they need them. Lots of conservative Americans (Hanover is getting more so as he gets older) just assume anybody collecting on a public benefit a) doesn't need it; b) is cheating in order to get it; or c) is too lazy to do without it. Public benefits = waste, fraud, and abuse.

My guess is that Brother Hanover Himself probably is a happy beneficiary of the federal tax deduction for mortgage payments. He might also be the beneficiary of other tax deductions, like maybe a deduction for his home office, and the like. Tax deductions are just public benefits by another name.

You do make a valid point here, which is that your resolving your problem won't resolve the overall problem. I will say, though, that a major part of the public assistance problem is that many (maybe you, maybe not) do not do all they can for themselves but instead find public assistance (which would include housing subsidies) an easier way out and a disincentive to self sustain. As I've noted, I have little problem providing for those who truly can't provide for themselves, but once those who really don't need the help start requesting it, everyone suffers because the resource is limited. What then happens is that there are demands that the rich give more, which is certainly something I've read on this board. — Hanover

Whilst I acknowledge that abuse of the benefit system is indeed a problem, I think that your approach is a greater problem, in that it shifts a vital focus away from the wealthy and towards the poor, and not in a good way, at a time when wealth inequality is greater than it has been in a long time (e.g. the UK is the only G7 country to record rising wealth inequality in 2000-14. Wealth inequality has risen four times faster in the seven years after the crash compared with the seven years before), and many of the wealthiest in society aren't paying enough tax (e.g. this report estimates that tax evasion might cost the UK £85 billion a year; tax avoidance might cost £19 billion, and tax not paid £18 billion). This is a much greater problem, as the following article shows: Benefit fraud v tax evasion: Which costs more?

And so while I can't resolve THE problem, I do think it's reasonable to resolve the best I can one person at a time, with the understanding that eventually there'll be some that really need aid and then we can deal with them one person at a time. — Hanover

We already have means tested benefits, which do just that.

Problems finding affordable housing usually occur in very high demand areas. — Hanover

Given the current state of affairs here, it's not just problematic finding affordable housing in very high demand areas. It has become commonplace. The overall demand has increased significantly.

The solution from a free market perspective (which I would advocate) would be to increase supply, which would mean allowing greater development of currently undeveloped land. — Hanover

Yes, definitely increase supply. None of the main political parties over here say otherwise. But we need a government which won't just basically pay lip service.

The problem of affordable housing is not a problem one person can resolve with self sufficiency.

The problem is that the pace of housing development is not at equilibrium with the pace of population growth.
In fact in the youtube vid I posted the current rate of housing development in the UK is about half the rate of current population growth.
If this is true then all of the UK will be a "high demand area."

No one person can produce a solution to that problem simply from being self reliant it will require a concerted effort of many people.

Sometimes when all you have is a hammer it begins to seem as though every problem is a nail.
But in this case the problem is not the result of a lack of self sufficiency so self reliance will not be how the solution is applied. — m-theory

Well put.