The Human Cost of a System That Treats Housing as a Commodity - Part 2

The Human Cost of a System That Treats Housing as a Commodity

(Part 2)

By Devin M. Jameson

---

In Part 1, we explored how the housing market was rigged from the inside—how powerful investors, warped incentives, and a lack of consequences created a system that no longer serves everyday people.

But the real damage isn’t just measured in dollars.
It’s measured in lives.

Because when housing is treated as a commodity instead of a basic human need, people at the bottom don’t just struggle.
They suffer.

This is the human cost of a system designed to extract—not to shelter.

---

Vacant Homes vs. Homelessness: A Crisis of Priorities

Across the country, millions of homes sit empty—held for speculation, short-term rentals, or simply left to decay.
At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people sleep on the streets every night.

This isn’t a crisis of availability.
It’s a crisis of values.

Housing is no longer treated as a necessity. It’s a profit vehicle. A commodity to be flipped or hoarded—not lived in. Not shared. Not used to shelter people unless there’s money to be made.

And those left without shelter?
They’re not just suffering—they’re being wasted.

Most unhoused people aren’t lazy or unwilling to work. They’re locked out of the system.

• No address means no job.
• No clean clothes or sleep means no interviews.
• No food or safety means no functionality.

So instead of contributing, many rely on emergency services—medical care, food programs, shelters, and policing. All taxpayer-funded.
Billions spent treating the symptoms—when we could fix the cause.

If we housed people first, many could stabilize. Find work. Provide for themselves.
Reclaim dignity.

But we don’t do that.
We trap them in a cycle of neglect.

This isn’t just inefficient.
It’s immoral.

When there are more empty homes than unhoused people—and we still let families suffer in tents and alleys—the problem isn’t scarcity.
It’s greed.
It’s policy.
It’s design.

And the human—and financial—cost is massive.

---

NIMBYism: The Irrational Barrier to Change

Most Americans agree—housing and rent are too expensive.
But when real solutions are proposed?

“Not In My Backyard.”

People want affordable housing—just not near them. They want lower prices—just not if it means an apartment down the block or a small dip in their property value.

The excuses sound polite:

• “It’ll increase traffic.”
• “It doesn’t fit the neighborhood.”
• “We’re concerned about safety.”

But let’s be honest:
What they’re really afraid of is poor people moving in.

The stigma is baked in—that low-income families bring crime, noise, or “undesirables.”
These are just coded ways of saying, we don’t want them here.

But here’s the irony:
Those same people already live in your city.
They stock shelves, prepare food, clean buildings, and care for children.
They’re essential—yet they can’t afford to live anywhere near where they work.

So where do we put them?
Far outside of town. Out of sight.

That creates a deeper problem: transportation.

If we push working-class people to the outskirts, how are they supposed to get to work? Groceries? Healthcare?

They already can’t afford rent—now we expect them to afford a car, gas, and hours of commuting just to survive?

That’s not a solution.
It’s a trap.

And here’s the kicker:

Unless you’re planning to sell your home and move somewhere cheaper, rising property values don’t help you.
They hurt you.

• Property taxes go up.
• Insurance premiums rise.
• And if you sell, your next home is overpriced too.

So what exactly are we protecting?

Once you own a home, it actually makes more sense to want prices to stay stable—or even drop.
But we’ve been sold a lie:
That rising home values are always good.
That resisting change keeps us safe.

In truth, it just locks us into a worsening crisis—one rooted in fear, bias, and self-preservation.

---

Climate Change: The Silent Force Shrinking Supply

As if artificial scarcity and political resistance weren’t enough, another force is tightening the housing market:
Climate change.

Every year, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and other disasters destroy tens of thousands of homes across the U.S.—and millions more globally are already lost or at risk.

This isn’t a future threat.
It’s already here.

Entire towns have been wiped out. And the displaced?
They need somewhere to go—often to the same “safe zones” where housing is already stretched thin.

And while some still debate the science, insurance companies don’t.

They’re raising premiums, dropping coverage, and abandoning entire regions.
They know what’s coming.
They’re pricing it in.

So not only are homes being destroyed—
The ones that remain are harder to insure, harder to keep, and more expensive to protect.

People are being pushed out of places they’ve lived for generations—not by landlords, but by climate instability.

It’s a slow-motion collapse, tightening the housing market from both ends.

---

So Why Isn’t the Market Correcting?

Because it’s not allowed to.

We’ve created a system where housing is hoarded, innovation is blocked, and morality is irrelevant.
Where climate instability shrinks supply.
Where NIMBYism blocks reform.
Where those who already have, get more—and those who need, get less.

But here’s the deeper question:

If so many people need housing...
And so many homes sit empty out of pure greed...
Why are we letting this happen?

Leaving people on the street doesn’t help society.
It makes neighborhoods feel unsafe.
It makes cities look like disaster zones.
And worst of all—it causes immense human suffering.

This isn’t just unjust.
It’s irrational.

A functional society doesn’t let homes rot while children sleep on sidewalks.
It doesn’t tolerate preventable suffering just because someone wants to make a few extra dollars.

We’re not watching a system collapse.
We’re watching it work exactly as designed.

And it’s time we said: enough.

---

Conclusion: If We Really Want to Fix This

If we want to solve the housing crisis, we need to stop pretending it’s just about economics.

Because this isn’t just about profit margins.
It’s about values.
It’s about priorities.
It’s about who we protect—and who we abandon.

We can build homes.
We can regulate investors.
We can change zoning.
We can tax vacant properties.
We can fund housing-first initiatives.

We know what to do.

But the real question isn’t “Can we fix it?”
It’s “Do we actually want to?”

Because housing people isn’t complicated.
It’s just inconvenient to those profiting from keeping them out.

And until we confront that truth, no law or policy tweak will fix what’s broken.
Only a shift in mindset can.