Connect with us

Lifestyle

The U.S. is facing a severe housing shortage. Will Trump's proposals help?

Published

on

The U.S. is facing a severe housing shortage. Will Trump's proposals help?

Construction of this $1 billion luxury real estate development in Los Angeles stalled in 2019 after a China-based developer ran out of funding, leaving the three-tower project unfinished amid a housing crisis in the city.

Mario Tama/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Heading into 2025, housing remains one of the most important issues on the minds of millions of Americans. For many, the dream of owning, or even renting, a place of their own is in peril. In some cities, people are paying $1 million for “starter” homes, while about half of renters are spending more than 30% of their income on housing.

Ben Keys, an economist with the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School, characterizes the current market as “deeply unaffordable.” Keys traces some of the current problems back to the financial crisis of 2008.

“We saw a collapse in construction, and so we just stopped building houses, we stopped building apartments for a few years there,” he says. “Now we’re seeing estimates of as much as four million houses that we’re short.”

Advertisement

Keys notes that new construction is occurring “at a snail’s pace,” due, in part, to the high cost of labor and materials and the difficulty of financing large projects. He says that zoning laws and land use restrictions can also contribute to a housing shortage: “[These] policies create a lot of hoops to jump through and make it challenging for developers who would like to build at the scale where they would like to build.”

President-elect Donald Trump has suggested opening up federal land for development, but Keys questions the practicality of the plan.

“When we’re thinking about this federal land out west, I’m pretty skeptical that we’re going to see, you know, cities spring up out of whole cloth,” he says. “Federal land seems promising, but as a solution to our affordability crisis, I just don’t see it.”

Interview highlights

On what Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports, including construction materials, would do to the housing market

Basically, if we’re going to raise the costs of construction materials, that’s going to raise the cost of building a home. Now, a lot of the materials that are used for construction are domestic. So we do have a lot of those in the U.S., but we also import a number of construction materials like lumber for things that would be covered under NAFTA from Canada. But the simple math is that if we are going to impose additional tariffs on building materials, it’s going to be more expensive to build rather than less expensive to build.

Advertisement

On what Trump’s proposed mass deportations might mean for housing 

I don’t think that there is a strong connection between this idea of removing immigrants from our country and making housing more affordable. And there’s a couple of reasons for this. One is that immigrants and undocumented immigrants make up a large fraction of the construction workforce. … And so it is going to make labor costs more expensive to build, and that’s going to drive up the cost of housing.

The trade off there, from a housing market standpoint — we’re talking about this in a very narrow sense — is that there will be fewer people in this sort of numbers game of supply and demand. But if we think about the types of housing that immigrants and undocumented immigrants tend to locate in, they tend to be renters and they tend to locate in low-income neighborhoods. Now, of course, that’s not uniformly true, but that’s where they are concentrated. And so if we’re thinking about the high cost of homeownership, removing undocumented immigrants from the pool of potential homebuyers is simply not going to move the needle on affordability.

On how climate change is contributing to the rise in costs for homeowners 

Advertisement

I think there’s a very direct line to be drawn between rising climate risks and the costs of homeownership in the form of property insurance. … In just the last three years, 2020 to 2023, my research with Phil Mulder has shown that property insurance has gone up by over 33% on average in the U.S., and over 50% in the areas of the country most exposed to climate risk. … The places that might come to mind are places like Florida in the Gulf Coast, wildfire zones in California, but also some parts of Oklahoma where they’re hit with a lot of hail storms and tornadoes. And there we’ve seen big run-ups in property insurance costs. And so what this has done is it’s made the sort of predictability of home ownership a little bit less predictable. …

I worry a lot for homeowners who had bought on a fixed income or were sort of constrained in how much they could afford and now they’re seeing their insurance costs rise sharply. And so this is a reflection of climate change … which is inducing more frequent and more severe disasters. But it’s also a function of mobility patterns. And where we’ve moved in this country over the last really 50 years, we’ve been moving into the danger zones. We’ve been moving into harm’s way.

On how the housing crisis impacts homelessness 

The number of extremely affordable rental units has plummeted in recent years, and this ties back into a housing shortage. Where does that housing shortage squeeze the most? It’s going to squeeze the most at the very bottom of the property ladder. Landlords who previously offered very affordable units have seen a great deal of demand for those units. They’re able to raise the rents. And so we’ve seen a lot of people fall off the bottom of the rental market, and that’s led to a ton of pressure, especially in expensive markets, and I think in many ways the diagnosis is quite clear that we have this supply-and-demand imbalance.

And so the cure is that we need more housing, that we need to prioritize housing. And this has been taken up with what’s been known as a “Housing First” strategy for dealing with homelessness. … With the Biden administration, there’s been an emphasis on this strategy, a recognition that many of the additional challenges that these households face can only be addressed once they’re in a stable housing environment. And there have been a number of pilot programs around the country that have borne this out.

Advertisement

On advice he would give to people who are debating whether or not it’s a good time to buy a home

First, do your homework and figure out the cost of housing in the market that you’re looking in, both for owning and for renting. I think it makes a lot of sense to continue to rent in markets where prices are high and interest rates are high. In many cases … you’d be better off putting your savings into something that’s delivering a safe, predictable return that might be more safe and predictable than returns on housing. So from an investment standpoint, investing elsewhere is very sensible.

And then, I think, as you’re approaching the decision to buy a house, think long term, because there are large fixed costs to buying a house in terms of transaction taxes and in terms of broker fees, title insurance and other costs that need to be rolled into that cost. When you’re doing an apples-to-apples comparison, the right comparison isn’t just comparing the mortgage payment to the monthly rent. And then on top of that, there’s a challenge with rising insurance costs and property taxes. And so you need to take a view on “Can I afford the property insurance, flood insurance, wind insurance, other (or supplemental) insurance policies in a few years when those may be more expensive than they are today?” So I think it takes a more careful budgeting approach than we’ve seen in the past. And, in many of those cases, my sense is that that’s going to come out on the rental side of the ledger rather than owning, given our current affordability crisis.

Monique Nazareth and Anna Bauman produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Catherine Laidlaw adapted it for the web.

Advertisement

Lifestyle

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Published

on

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.

Ben Margot/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Margot/AP

When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.

Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.

Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.

Advertisement

He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.

In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.

We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.

Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf

Published

on

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
The Italian fashion group behind Diesel and Maison Margiela is taking full ownership of the avant-garde haute couture house, acquiring the remaining 30 percent it didn’t already own. Founders Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren remain creative directors.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

Published

on

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.

As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.

“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?

It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

Advertisement

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.

“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.

The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.

Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.

The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.

Advertisement

It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.

“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.

To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.

But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.

Advertisement

“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.

“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere

Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.

“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”

There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.

Advertisement

But “love” still prevails.

“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending