Very well said. I have come to hate that word, "housing." And you're right, "schooling" presents a similar problem. I wrote a bit about housing a few months back in a piece called "Intellectual Sin." It had lots of overlap with your main point here. Here's what I wrote:
A friend sent me an article from Matt Yglesias, “The High Cost of Promoting Homeownership,” after a lively conversation a few of us had about affordable housing in our area. I like Matt. As thinkers on the center-left go, he’s as smart and reasonable as they come. But this piece bugged me. His main argument is that, on an individual level, homeownership is reasonable, but on a policy level, promoting it across the board is less important than it might seem. Technically, he says, we’d all be better off with a diversified real estate portfolio than having that same amount of assets tied into one home. This is hard to argue with on purely economic grounds. But that’s where I get annoyed. Because, of course, life does not exist in a purely economic world…
The problem with Matt’s logic is not technical but symbolic. He tends to think about policy from a strictly material perspective. Thus he treats owning a house like owning a commodity. "A house is an example of stuff," he says. I mean, yeah. But the trouble is, humans aren't just material beings. We don't just need "affordable housing." We need homes. So the difference between owning and renting is not just the material difference of what commodities are or are not in your portfolio. The difference has to do with whether or not you have long-term embodied connections to the physical space in which you dwell. And even from a material perspective, this spiritual fact can manifest in terms of crime rates, generational poverty, abortion, and the like. When people symbolically "rent" everything and "own" nothing, it changes their relationship with their own agency, values, virtues, goals, and beliefs. [Btw, I grant here that there could be a version of “renting” that is actually better for the soul than owning, from a Christian perspective, but that’s another story.]
The other problem with treating homes merely as commodities is that you end up with the logic he preaches in this article, that we'd all be better off if we diversified our real estate portfolios rather than just owning one home. Again, on strictly economic terms, perhaps this is true. It'd also be wiser if we were 1/10 citizens of ten different countries instead of full citizens of one country, 1/10 married to ten different spouses, etc. "You can never know which one(s) will fail!" But this is not the way life works, and certainly not the way love works. In this life, we must riskily commit to specific people, places, and things in order to see more generalized fruit eventually.
"If everyone owned diverse real estate portfolios, they would probably be pro-development and want to capture that upside," says Matt. Yes, of course. But that would be awful. Because then we'd have nothing but profit-driven investments in generic real estate "products" across the country with little to no personal responsibility for what becomes of those "communities," rather than neighborhoods with real human investment and responsibility where you live.
What I’m saying is that love is generally the opposite of diversifying your portfolio. Of course, the fruit of such love is quite often a more diversified portfolio, just as faithful marriage to one person can lead to multiple children and grandchildren. But to get there, we must not confuse fruit with roots.
This is great, Ross -- Iglesias' perspective here is inhuman, and technocratic in the worst senses that I've worked on trying to describe. The organization Strong Towns has argued that a key driver of our current housing crisis is an unacknowledged tension between the two uses of housing in contemporary society -- housing cannot both be a dwelling *and* an investment. You cannot have a situation where the average person can afford a home *and* for houses to constantly be appreciating in value (line go up!). So, which is it? Is a house a home or an investment? Currently, houses operate more as investments on the balance sheets of financial institutions (the gains of which are then sold back to the middle class in the form of 401(k)s and pension funds). This situation cannot be sustained, but the contradictions also cannot be spoken about openly due to powerful and moneyed interests.
You're exactly right. There are still corners of the country (we live in one) where houses are built to be homes--by families for families--and are passed down within the family without even the thought of selling. But such a phenomenon (which was once the norm) is now extremely rare and increasingly difficult to sustain.
I think it important to distinguish the improvement from the land. Since the founding of the New World, the land has been robbed of its spirit and turned into the commodity. In response to several hundred years of feudal control of land with serfs permitted to live their lives on said land, it was a bold idea that if you could just get to the New World, you too could become a land-holder.
The Land Act of 1785 in the United States created the standardization of division, turning raw land into commodity. The rise of improvement value is a more recent twist on this much older deal. And that is the New World in a nutshell: a real estate deal. The original abundance of North America was the vast stretches of unclaimed land (First Nation people's not being seen as "people" in that paradigm).
In the US the tax law favors up-scaling one's home, providing significant reduction in taxes especially if you re-invest real estate sales profits into another home. The cradle-to-grave perspective is rather grim, as it assumes you'll sell your home to afford end of life care, or if you have those funds you will eventually die anyway and presumably leave the property to your heirs (who'll be heavily taxed on that inheritance).
What is missed in all this analysis is that we have overtly divorced ourselves from the spirit of place, and a great majority of people are not tied down to their location, and have expressed a willingness to move if opportunities arose (documented in my forthcoming chapter in the Silk Cities publication on intangible heritage, Springer).
This is sad on a personal level, but on a community level it is alienating. Communities, by and large, lack commitment to the location that would drive other civic-minded actions such as compassion for the needy neighbors, environmental degradation, and the general gambit of local politics.
Failing to get involved in local politics is the malaise of our time, as the majority of direct impacts on an individual arise from local policy, not state, provincial, or nation-state policy.
Excellent piece, Matthew Stanley, and it reminds me perfectly of Illich's notion of "Disablement" as defining society, alongside the tyranny of certification, zoning, regulation, etc., which all makes modern markets possible. If you get a chance, I think you'd like his small book, "The Right to Useful Unemployment." A great quote from it: ‘Wherever the shadow of economic growth touches us, we are left useless unless employed on a job or engaged in consumption: the attempt to build a house or set a bone outside the control of certified specialists appears as anarchic conceit.’ (page 10). Also: ‘the decline in the individual-personal ability to do or to make, which is the price of every additional degree of commodity affluence'...(30).
Ugh, so good! The managers cannot abide anyone doing anything for themselves or without consulting the experts -- it's a threat to their entire symbolic and material order.
Very well said. I have come to hate that word, "housing." And you're right, "schooling" presents a similar problem. I wrote a bit about housing a few months back in a piece called "Intellectual Sin." It had lots of overlap with your main point here. Here's what I wrote:
A friend sent me an article from Matt Yglesias, “The High Cost of Promoting Homeownership,” after a lively conversation a few of us had about affordable housing in our area. I like Matt. As thinkers on the center-left go, he’s as smart and reasonable as they come. But this piece bugged me. His main argument is that, on an individual level, homeownership is reasonable, but on a policy level, promoting it across the board is less important than it might seem. Technically, he says, we’d all be better off with a diversified real estate portfolio than having that same amount of assets tied into one home. This is hard to argue with on purely economic grounds. But that’s where I get annoyed. Because, of course, life does not exist in a purely economic world…
The problem with Matt’s logic is not technical but symbolic. He tends to think about policy from a strictly material perspective. Thus he treats owning a house like owning a commodity. "A house is an example of stuff," he says. I mean, yeah. But the trouble is, humans aren't just material beings. We don't just need "affordable housing." We need homes. So the difference between owning and renting is not just the material difference of what commodities are or are not in your portfolio. The difference has to do with whether or not you have long-term embodied connections to the physical space in which you dwell. And even from a material perspective, this spiritual fact can manifest in terms of crime rates, generational poverty, abortion, and the like. When people symbolically "rent" everything and "own" nothing, it changes their relationship with their own agency, values, virtues, goals, and beliefs. [Btw, I grant here that there could be a version of “renting” that is actually better for the soul than owning, from a Christian perspective, but that’s another story.]
The other problem with treating homes merely as commodities is that you end up with the logic he preaches in this article, that we'd all be better off if we diversified our real estate portfolios rather than just owning one home. Again, on strictly economic terms, perhaps this is true. It'd also be wiser if we were 1/10 citizens of ten different countries instead of full citizens of one country, 1/10 married to ten different spouses, etc. "You can never know which one(s) will fail!" But this is not the way life works, and certainly not the way love works. In this life, we must riskily commit to specific people, places, and things in order to see more generalized fruit eventually.
"If everyone owned diverse real estate portfolios, they would probably be pro-development and want to capture that upside," says Matt. Yes, of course. But that would be awful. Because then we'd have nothing but profit-driven investments in generic real estate "products" across the country with little to no personal responsibility for what becomes of those "communities," rather than neighborhoods with real human investment and responsibility where you live.
What I’m saying is that love is generally the opposite of diversifying your portfolio. Of course, the fruit of such love is quite often a more diversified portfolio, just as faithful marriage to one person can lead to multiple children and grandchildren. But to get there, we must not confuse fruit with roots.
This is great, Ross -- Iglesias' perspective here is inhuman, and technocratic in the worst senses that I've worked on trying to describe. The organization Strong Towns has argued that a key driver of our current housing crisis is an unacknowledged tension between the two uses of housing in contemporary society -- housing cannot both be a dwelling *and* an investment. You cannot have a situation where the average person can afford a home *and* for houses to constantly be appreciating in value (line go up!). So, which is it? Is a house a home or an investment? Currently, houses operate more as investments on the balance sheets of financial institutions (the gains of which are then sold back to the middle class in the form of 401(k)s and pension funds). This situation cannot be sustained, but the contradictions also cannot be spoken about openly due to powerful and moneyed interests.
You're exactly right. There are still corners of the country (we live in one) where houses are built to be homes--by families for families--and are passed down within the family without even the thought of selling. But such a phenomenon (which was once the norm) is now extremely rare and increasingly difficult to sustain.
I think it important to distinguish the improvement from the land. Since the founding of the New World, the land has been robbed of its spirit and turned into the commodity. In response to several hundred years of feudal control of land with serfs permitted to live their lives on said land, it was a bold idea that if you could just get to the New World, you too could become a land-holder.
The Land Act of 1785 in the United States created the standardization of division, turning raw land into commodity. The rise of improvement value is a more recent twist on this much older deal. And that is the New World in a nutshell: a real estate deal. The original abundance of North America was the vast stretches of unclaimed land (First Nation people's not being seen as "people" in that paradigm).
In the US the tax law favors up-scaling one's home, providing significant reduction in taxes especially if you re-invest real estate sales profits into another home. The cradle-to-grave perspective is rather grim, as it assumes you'll sell your home to afford end of life care, or if you have those funds you will eventually die anyway and presumably leave the property to your heirs (who'll be heavily taxed on that inheritance).
What is missed in all this analysis is that we have overtly divorced ourselves from the spirit of place, and a great majority of people are not tied down to their location, and have expressed a willingness to move if opportunities arose (documented in my forthcoming chapter in the Silk Cities publication on intangible heritage, Springer).
This is sad on a personal level, but on a community level it is alienating. Communities, by and large, lack commitment to the location that would drive other civic-minded actions such as compassion for the needy neighbors, environmental degradation, and the general gambit of local politics.
Failing to get involved in local politics is the malaise of our time, as the majority of direct impacts on an individual arise from local policy, not state, provincial, or nation-state policy.
Excellent piece, Matthew Stanley, and it reminds me perfectly of Illich's notion of "Disablement" as defining society, alongside the tyranny of certification, zoning, regulation, etc., which all makes modern markets possible. If you get a chance, I think you'd like his small book, "The Right to Useful Unemployment." A great quote from it: ‘Wherever the shadow of economic growth touches us, we are left useless unless employed on a job or engaged in consumption: the attempt to build a house or set a bone outside the control of certified specialists appears as anarchic conceit.’ (page 10). Also: ‘the decline in the individual-personal ability to do or to make, which is the price of every additional degree of commodity affluence'...(30).
Ugh, so good! The managers cannot abide anyone doing anything for themselves or without consulting the experts -- it's a threat to their entire symbolic and material order.
Exactly, very well put.