The Deepening Wedge
Edward J. Dodson
[Reprinted from
Equal Rights, Winter 2005]
The wedge between the "haves" and the "have nots"
is deepening in the United States. Equal Rights readers might
want to take a look at the statistics I compiled and presented last
year at the CGO conference in Bridgeport, CT. The report is available
on the School of Cooperative Individualism website. At the same time,
a large segment of the population is enjoying enormous increases in
our paper net worth. Most homeowners are riding the upward spiral of
land prices in communities all across the nation. Yet, even those who
have never read Henry George or studied political economy as taught by
George are smiling while keeping a watchful look over the horizon for
signs that "the housing bubble" will burst on them.
Answer these questions: Today, without the benefit of "equity"
in your home (and in the land parcel thereunder), could you afford to
purchase the property you currently own? Could you afford to purchase
any property in your community as a primary residence? Can your
children afford to purchase any property in your community, town or
within a reasonable driving distance from where you live unless they
receive a gift from you or a grant for down payment and closing cost
assistance from some government agency?
If you are able to answer "yes" to even one of the above
questions, you are part of a declining minority of households in the
United States. In fact, the rate of homeownership for families with
children is lower than it was in the 1970s, falling from 62.5% to
56.6% according to study released by the Center for Housing Policy.
Part of the story is rising housing costs. Part of the story is
falling household incomes for many "blue collar" workers.
Part of the story is the dramatic increase in single parent
households. And, of course, part of the story - the part least
reported on - is the spiraling cost of land.
For some, benefits of a booming land market are very real, even if
not yet realized by the sale of the land held. A large number of
households are experiencing enormous increases in their paper net
worth because of rising land prices. This accrued land value is there
to be cashed in on as people retire from their working lives and find
themselves in need of an alternative source of income to supplement
what they receive from employers and the Federal government. One
result is that the "reverse mortgage" business is
mushrooming, where homeowners relinquish equity for a monthly income
supplement. With such a large percentage of households owning homes
and owning some amount of relatively valuable land, the fact that the
top few percent of the population control 40% of all household wealth
and half of total financial wealth is obscured: the pie is huge and
both government and private philanthropic programs mitigate the worst
consequences for those at the bottom.
The United States is entering a very dangerous period, for a number
of reasons. One is that the population is rapidly aging. Many will
need to convert home equity into cash to pay for medical care, but the
pressure on government to absorb the costs of medical care for perhaps
one-third of the nation's elderly is very real. Unless the "supply-side"
gamble of the Bush administration and its Congressional supporters
pays off, the national debt will continue to escalate, putting upward
pressure on interest rates and (if the Federal Reserve succumbs to
government pressure to print new currency in exchange for government
debt) an escalation of inflation.
As we know, no one in a position of authority is committed to
implementing fundamental solutions to these challenges and risks. The
tendency will likely hold for changes in public policy to proceed
along the historical path of "disjointed incrementalism."
So, in light of this socio-political environment, we ought to
realistically expect the U.S. to experience some harder times ahead.
Just when I would not hazard to predict. The paper net worth in land
values held by existing homeowners is part of the equation, however.
And, what follows are bullet points describing some of the key
characteristics of homeownership in the United States:
- There are an estimated 293.6 million people and 110.4 million
households in the United States. Some 75 million households (68%
of the total) are homeowners - meaning they hold the deed to the
property and are the beneficiaries of the equity created by a
combination of loan amortization and rising land values. One in
twelve of these properties contains between one and five rental
units.
- Most homeowners have lived in their properties (or have been
homeowners and moved from one or more properties) for a decade or
longer. However, special financing programs, as well as government
grants, make it possible for a significant number of households to
achieve homeownership every year.
- The average price paid in 2003 for a new home was $246,300. The
average price for existing homes is generally a good deal less
than this. Yet, the proportion of land value to total value for
existing housing is often greater than for new housing. Builders
who have the financial reserves to land bank for long periods are
able to take advantage of the fact that other builders must
construct larger and amenity-rich homes - or gain permission from
resistant local planning and zoning boards to construct large
numbers of units per acre of land.
- In 2001, the average homeowner's equity above outstanding
mortgage debt was 54%. Remarkably, this represented a decline from
60% in 1991 during a period of almost continuous increases in land
values. One reason is that millions of households borrowed against
their equity to pay off other debt, make significant improvements
to their homes or obtain cash for their children's education
expenses.
Now, let's take a look at estimating how much land value is attached
to residential property.
The average price for all housing in 2003 was around $176,000. Using
the 75 million figure as the total owner-occupied housing stock, the
total market value of this housing is $13.2 trillion. A relatively
conservative average land-to-total value ratio of 30% suggests these
properties include $3.96 trillion in capitalized land value. (Note,
then, that if the market capitalization rate is 5% per annum, the
imputed annualized rent fund available to be captured for community
use and distribution would be $19.8 billion.)
The Federal Reserve reported that as of 30 September 2003, the total
mortgage debt held on one- to four-family residential properties had
reached $7.1 trillion, leaving property owners with $6.1 trillion of
total equity. Of course, this tells us nothing about the distribution
of land-related equity among property owners. For that, we need to
look at very detailed statistics on the housing stock.
We know, for example, that in many small towns distant from major
metropolitan areas and not subject to resort area influences, a large
home on an acre or more of land might cost less than a condominium
unit located in a suburb of any major city. In the latter case, much
more than 30% of the total value is in the land, while in the former
case, much less than 30% of the total value is likely to be in the
land. In many markets, leasing the second or more units will generate
sufficient cash flow to cover the owner's mortgage payment, insurance
and real estate taxes. Purchasers will often pay much more for these
properties than for a single unit property with the same square
footage on the same parcel of land. In other circumstances, these
income-producing properties are acquired for extensive renovation and
conversion into single-family properties.
All this means is that the housing market is extremely complex and
very dynamic. Yet, for those of more modest means, land ownership
(thru homeownership) and positive net worth are directly related. By
virtue of all of the special programs and tax incentives associated
with owning a home, the policies of disjointed incrementalism have
managed to return just enough of the total rent fund to the middle 60%
of the population to make them feel they are in the game. The bottom
20% -- low income renters and the homeless - share none of the rent
fund and very little of the wealth pie.
|