In markets where more people can afford houses bigger than they “need,” more people are willing and able to take in friends, family, and acquaintances over longer periods to allow them to avoid homelessness.
If you have an empty basement with a bathroom, you’re going to be more willing to let a down-on-their-luck relative stay there than you would be if you lived in an apartment with roommates.
I also misread the first claim, “It’s not just about rents — it’s also about the rooms friends and family can’t afford to share.” As being stronger than it is—and that’s my fault. I think the linked article effectively argues that insightful claim.
Comments
There’s a lot of stories in this, but not what I would call good causal evidence for the central claim.
Am I misreading this or is it overhyped claims that aren’t really backed up in the sense of being causal as defined in social science?