The far right’s Malthusian view of the housing market

Donald Trump and JD Vance I have a story to sell: with the struggle for housing in the United States, the real problem is the presence of immigrants.

Americans ‘cannot ignore the impact that the flood of 21 million illegal immigrants has had on rising housing costs’ Trump argued in September at a luncheon at the Economic Club of New York. Vance has made this argument even more passionately – in X, in recent interviews, and elsewhere. During the vice presidential debate, Vance declared that “25 million illegal aliens competing with Americans for rare homes is one of the most important factors affecting home prices in the country,” adding: “That’s why we have massive increases in home prices that have happened in parallel with massive population growth illegal aliens under the leadership of Kamala Harris.”

Key elements of this story are false. First, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States is probably around 11 million, less than half of Vance’s estimate. Moreover, when economist Ernie Tedeschi compared places that had seen a sharp increase in the foreign-born population with places that had seen a large increase in housing prices for Native Americans, he could not even find a simple correlation. But Trump and Vance get one thing right: Instilling in the American public that immigrants are exploiting finite resources is an effective way to tap into the illiberal sentiment that can fuel Republican Party victory.

Alex Trembath and Vijaya Ramachandran: The Malthusians are back

Now let’s deal with a few things: Housing Is is rare in large, liberal and productive cities like San Francisco and Boston, which have created well-paying jobs but refused to build enough housing to accommodate all the new workers. And if 25 million people suddenly disappeared from the United States, the pressure on home prices and rents would ease somewhat, all things being equal.

But not everything would be the same. The kinds of events that crush housing demand – such as a falling birth rate, a massive recession that destroys the incomes of many workers, a virus that kills a tenth of the population and, yes, the sudden expulsion of tens of millions of illegal immigrants – usually have traumatic consequences, economic and otherwise .

What makes arguments like Trump and Vance seem credible is the general lack of thought when it comes to systems. In reality, immigrants are not just housing consumers; they are also consumers of a variety of other products, stimulating demand for more jobs for all Americans. And of course, immigrants are not only consumers, but also producers who help build housing and contribute to technological innovation.

However, the fear of competing for a fixed pool of resources is deeply rooted in human thinking. In 1798 Essay on population principlethe English economist Thomas Malthus warned that population growth would impoverish everyone: “The food that was previously sufficient to support seven millions must now be distributed among seven and a half millions or eight millions. As a result, the poor have to live much worse, and many of them fall into serious misery.”

The tendency to turn against outsiders in the face of critical shortcomings is not limited to the basket of deplorables. It is in all of us. Most people see others as a threat to their resources – whether it’s immigrants coming for your apartment, yuppies driving up rents, other students taking up places at good schools, or simply more people on the roads which increases congestion.

Recent vote in Massachusetts – which supported Joe Biden in the fight against Trump in 2020 two to one— revealed that many people are convinced of Trump/Vance illiberalism. A majority (47.2 percent) agreed with the statement: “Migrants choose affordable housing, which should go to Americans first.” It is not Trump’s rhetorical skills that are turning a significant number of Massachusetts liberals against their own principles. They are witnessing conditions of scarcity that Democratic policymakers in their state have perpetuated for decades.

The mismatch between job creation and housing creation in the wealthiest blue states has sent prices skyrocketing, prompted some people to give up good jobs because housing was too expensive, and strained entire communities by turning neighbor against neighbor. Liberals have unwittingly created the conditions in which illiberal policies have taken root in some of the most progressive jurisdictions in the country.

There they are basically two ways to respond to shortages. There is Malthusian thinking – a fierce defense of the existing pool of resources, a policy that requires more and more scapegoats and leaves everyone poorer in the long run. Then there is liberalism, which demands a growing pie. He says we can earn more: more housing, more schools, more good jobs, and that will be enough for everyone.

This wasn’t always possible. Scarcity was a depressing fact of human existence. Malthus was looking back at an era in human history during which GDP per capita was extremely low and population growth placed a strain on existing resources, ultimately leading to population decline. It was a terrible, depressing cycle that pitted family against family, tribe against tribe. Really there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone, or enough energy to keep everyone warm. A growing population meant new mouths to feed; new mouths to feed meant a decline in everyone’s standard of living.

But the Industrial Revolution changed all that. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, economies like England’s began to escape the Malthusian trap. The surge in productivity and economic growth has outpaced the growth of new people. New people don’t just mean new mouths to feed; they were positive sum additions to society. Even as population grew exponentially, GDP per capita continued to grow, lifting people out of poverty. Humans have learned how to produce more food with fewer resources (steam engines!), built structures that could accommodate more people in a smaller area (density!) and created technologies that can quickly move many people (horse-drawn omnibuses on rails! cable cars! cars!). In a world of rapid economic growth, population growth no longer means sacrifice. Welcoming newcomers with open arms no longer required a messianic level of generosity. Even a policy based on tolerating others we are celebrating different, became possible.

Read: A Brief Economic History of Time

The political logic of tolerance only works when society escapes the scarcity trap. Anti-immigration hawks insist that the focus should be on the increased short-term demand for housing caused by immigration. They don’t want to zoom out and see the whole picture: American economic growth relies on higher levels of immigration. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, “International migrants were the only source of U.S. working-age population growth in 2021 and 2022…A shrinking working-age population could easily lead to economic stagnation and even falling standards for the nation. ” Fewer people mean less innovation, fewer goods and services produced, and higher prices and shortages. But liberals have forgotten the crucial importance of fighting scarcity, and the logic of Malthusian thinking has crept back in.

ANDn the richest country in the worldscarcity is now a choice. There are no technological barriers to building enough housing for everyone. We know how to build houses; we’ve done this before. But I fear liberals have forgotten that their desire to create a kinder, more inclusive world rests on society’s ability to prove that there is enough to offer. We cannot rely on altruism to redistribute resources to those most in need, provide more to the poor, and uphold egalitarian principles. We live in a fallen world. People need more than abstract ideals; they need to feel safe.

Listen: Who is responsible for the housing crisis?

Tensions have mounted during the pandemic as rising home prices have shocked expensive suburbs and sleepy cities alike. Graffiti in Boise, Idaho, speaks volumes to newcomers “Come Back to California” it reflected the frustrated mood of longtime residents as wealthy Californians moved in. But scarcity doesn’t just widen disparities; also creates them. When I report on homelessness, I hear people claim that homeless residents are bussed in from out of state, which is a myth that researchers have identified he worked tirelessly to refute— one comprehensive study found that 90 percent of California’s homeless lost their last housing in the Golden State. Most of the remaining 10 percent were born there or had family or professional connections with the state.

Rhetoric like Vance’s and Trump’s tends to resonate with people who assume they are defending themselves against intruders – that the outsider will always be someone else. But history reminds us of this stranger was never an established concept. During the Great Depression, California passed an anti-immigration law targeting Oklahomans and other Americans fleeing the Dust Bowl, criminalizing “consciously help the poor to enter the state” How can you be sure that your community will not be hit by an economic or natural disaster? There is no recession? No hurricanes? No fires? If you’re willing to take the risk, go ahead. But the best insurance against future disasters is to invest in liberalism and growth today.

However, it is not enough to simply expect better from people. Liberalism must provide real, tangible proof that it can fight scarcity. Otherwise, people will do what comes naturally. They will do what their ancestors did and what Trump and Vance encourage them to do: turn on the aliens. And when they run out of strangers, they will turn on each other.