
11M households could be evicted over the next four months - onetimemanytime
https://www.fastcompany.com/90532305/11-million-households-could-be-evicted-over-the-next-four-months
======
joe_the_user
So I see 553,742 people homeless at last estimate (2017, unfortunately). 11M
would 20x this amount, an amount that seems catastrophic and unmanageable.

Moreover, this seems like a situation where an emergency event is treated like
an ordinary, non-emergency situation. And the reason for this is apparently
that America's system of governance is so polarized and dysfunctional that no
entity either can or will put forward a broad plan to escape the situation.

[https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-
america/homeless...](https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-
america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report-legacy/)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _America 's system of governance is so polarized and dysfunctional that no
> entity either can or will put forward a broad plan to escape the situation_

There is a federal eviction moratorium in effect on federally-subsidized and
federally-backed housing [1]. Many states and cities have more-comprehensive
moratoria in place [2].

I'll also note that CARES Act was almost 3x the size of the EU's recent
package (over 7x if one ignores its loans) and 4 months earlier. The
Republican's follow-up bill, half the size of the Democrats', is still larger
than the EU's single package.

American government has plenty of faults. But inability to act in a crisis is
not one of them.

[1] [https://www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/mortgage-and-
hou...](https://www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/mortgage-and-housing-
assistance/renter-protections/)

[2] [https://ny.curbed.com/2020/3/26/21192343/coronavirus-new-
yor...](https://ny.curbed.com/2020/3/26/21192343/coronavirus-new-york-
eviction-moratorium-covid-19)

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'll also note that CARES Act was almost 3x the size of the EU's recent
> package

The EU isn't a national government, their package is a lot more generous than
any comparable US-centered supernational regional org.

As far as national governments go, the German package passed in April was
about US$10,000 per capita, about 1/5 of GDP. CARES was about US$5,000 per
capita, about 1/12 of GDP. Germany passed additional packages, for a total aid
passed through through June of over $17,000 per capita, over 1/3 of GDP.

------
cwhiz
“Could” is a pretty important word here. This estimate is from a survey of how
people feel about their ability to pay rent. It’s not an actual estimate of
the number of distressed tenants or the number of landlords looking to evict.

I would imagine there is plenty of uncertainty at the moment due to Congress
being completely dysfunctional. But let’s say they pass an unemployment
extension and send out another round of stimulus checks. What’s the next
survey going to look like?

~~~
dividedbyzero
Despite the uncertainty, just that the current pandemic can drive a country so
extremely wealthy as the US to a point where such a humanitarian crisis on US
soil is a somewhat realistic possibility, it's crazy. 11 million households,
what a number.

After all, in the larger context, this pandemic is pretty benign among
disasters of that magnitude. History is riddled with cataclysms – decades-long
droughts over whole continents? Been there, bought the studded leather shirt,
got murdered by Mongols. The Black Death, Mount Tambora, a Carrington Event in
modern times, Tunguska (but larger), ... This sort of thing has happened lots
and lots of times and will happen again.

If anything, our recent past has been extraordinarily calm. If it turns out
the US government can't keep, something like a tenth of the population? in
secure housing during this, good luck with climate change, good luck with the
next big one that maybe won't be so benign. This is deeply disconcerting.

~~~
thu2111
The virus is indeed pretty benign compared to many other disasters. Very
benign when you take into account the various statistical distortions e.g.
most COVID deaths being more like "tested positive at time of death" rather
than actual additive deaths.

But the over-reaction to it is on an ahistoric scale. It's quite cataclysmic.
You've had people pulling their own teeth out with pliers because the dentists
were all closed [1], you have people being locked in their homes for weeks or
even months without being able to go outside [2], people being welded inside
buildings [3], you have half of all restaurants on Yelp permanently closing
[4], you have the elderly being abandoned in care homes to die [5] [6]

So whilst I agree _diseases_ have happened before, the kind of global end-of-
days mentality we're seeing here is extremely rare. It's not driven by the
actual facts of the virus, there's something else at work.

[1] [https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/people-are-pulling-their-
own-t...](https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/people-are-pulling-their-own-teeth-
with-dentists-on-lockdown/)

[2] [https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-hombre-permanece-aislado-
it...](https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-hombre-permanece-aislado-italia-
tras-17-test-positivos-covid-19-202007231415_noticia.html)

[3] [https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/coronavirus-residents-welded-
insi...](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/coronavirus-residents-welded-inside-their-
own-home/)

[4] [https://mashable.com/article/yelp-restaurants-temporary-
perm...](https://mashable.com/article/yelp-restaurants-temporary-permanent-
closures/?europe=true)

[5] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-52014023](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52014023)

[6] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/26/canada-care-
ho...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/26/canada-care-homes-
military-report-coronavirus)

~~~
flunhat
My understanding is that it’s the other way around — both cases and deaths are
being undercounted substantially. And testing capacity has been intentionally
kneecapped by the govt (if you test fewer, you’ll find fewer cases, which
looks good).

All told, COVID looks to be about 10x deadlier than the flu. Which is still
low, but not trivial given how quickly it spreads.

~~~
thu2111
I don't think your understanding is up to date.

10x deadlier than the flu would require it to have an IFR of 1%. Even the US
CDC, which has been over-exaggerating the dangers from the start, peg it at
much less than that, more like 0.3% and many studies are putting it even
lower, like between 0.08% (low end, Denmark) and 0.36% (Germany, Heisenberg).

But those IFRs are also calculated using the standard definition of a COVID
death - someone who died, and was testing positive.

If you look at Italy, early on they realised there was a conflation going on,
and so they did proper studies of some sample of COVID deaths to see why they
really died. They concluded only 4% of the patients had no other medical
conditions, and I recall reading (but don't have a link right now) that they
concluded about 12% had really died of COVID. The rest all just happened to be
infected when they died of something else, which would make sense given the
first stat. So you can cut a digit off most of the reported death rates.

All suggestions of undercounting are based on the assumption that all excess
death is caused by COVID, and nothing else, even though in some countries e.g.
the UK many excess death certificates don't even mention COVID, and in other
countries like Germany there basically isn't any excess death:

[https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Cross-
Section/Corona/Socie...](https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Cross-
Section/Corona/Society/population_death.html)

~~~
malyk
If you look at the CDC data on Excess Deaths[1] then you can see that COVID
and the response to COVID has been responsible for a significant number of
excess deaths in every week since the week ending on 3/28.

So, maybe not 10x deadlier, but certainly way deadlier in total count of
deaths.

1 -
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm)

~~~
thu2111
COVID _and the response to it_ \- maybe yes. But remember that many countries
have seen no excess death at all, their graphs are totally flat. Just look at
EuroMOMO.

People have tried to figure out why. It's supposedly the same virus
everywhere. It's not related to hospital overload or healthcare availability
because nowhere ran out of that, despite the initial scares.

It might be care home related, as that's where 80% of the deaths are (reported
to be). It might be related to decisions to flush hospitals to make way for a
modelled surge that never happened. But then that'd fall squarely into the
response bucket.

The US data is hard to interpret because it only goes back to 2017. I can't
seem to find longer term data. Do you know where to find it?

In the UK - one of the 'worst hit' in the world supposedly (but those stats
were found to be wrong) - to find similar excess deaths you have to go back to
1998/1999/2000\. Is this bad? Well, "once in 20 year excess death spike" may
seem bad. But events that happen once every 20 years aren't especially rare.
Back then nobody panicked. Nobody talks about the terrible winters of 1999
when they lost so many loved ones. So it's really important to be able to put
these excess death stats in perspective, otherwise you just see a bump in a
graph and are told "this is really bad".

------
iandanforth
This reminds me of the saying "If you owe the bank $100, that’s your problem.
If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem." There has to be
an opportunity for collective action here.

~~~
novok
You sit there and do nothing. The sherrif eviction backlog alone would take
forever I would imagine.

~~~
koheripbal
...while your credit rating drops 200 points for the next 10 years.

The alternative is calling your landlord and speaking to him - almost as if
he's a real human being. Tell him you'll have to move if he doesn't
temporarily lower the rent.

~~~
dencodev
nevermind!

~~~
Schiendelman
As a landlord, this is not true in several ways.

First, in every municipality I've leased in, a landlord is only entitled to
the rent from a broken lease up to the point where they find a new tenant.

Second, landlords can't typically collect rent after a date of eviction (same
reasoning - you can't charge for a service you haven't rendered).

Third, rents are dropping across the US. It's not a given that they'll find
another tenant immediately.

Fourth, the cost to recover rent is high, and usually not worth it.

~~~
harambae
>rents are dropping across the US

do you have a citation for this? my experience in Boston in that landlords
have stopped jacking up rents. that's about it. I haven't seen any come down
yet.

------
LatteLazy
I find this really interesting because if I were a landlord and had a tennant
who was now paying and otherwise had a good history, I would NOT want to be
trying to fill a place at a time like this. I'd just forgive and forget.

~~~
ElonMuskrat
Landlords are levereged to the tits. They are a few mortgage payments away
from foreclosure. These are acts of desperation.

~~~
swiley
Good. Let them feel some pain for helping overinflate the real estate market.

~~~
scarface74
So if the rental market became smaller. How would that help anyone? Would the
tenants all go out and buy houses?

~~~
runeb
I guess what they hope for is that landlords would face foreclosures or dump
property, causing prices to fall, enabling more people to buy their own
housing. That all depends on how many of current tenants are just outside the
ability to buy and that being the main reason they rent instead of own.

~~~
scarface74
The last thing you want if you want to decrease unemployment is for people
buying homes. Once you buy a house you limit your mobility and limit your
optionality to go to where the jobs are.

In fact, you should be encouraging shorter leases.

I got rid of my house in 2012 after getting married so my (step)sons could
stay in their much better school district. I was hesitant to buy a house in
2016 because I had no idea what direction my career might take when my
youngest graduated in 2020.

I might have even gone the r/cscareerquestions route and “learn leetCode and
work for a FAANG” and move to the west coast. But my rent was increasing like
crazy and I wanted to lock in my housing costs by buying.

Thank God I found a remote opening at $BigTech. If not, I would be selling my
house in the next couple of years and trying to move - under normal non
pandemic circumstances.

~~~
runeb
If the mobility was true to such an extent you wouldn't have the overinflation
the real estate market to the degree we see in certain places. That all goes
out the window if the employers in the area close down, of course. But then
the landlords have the same problem anyways.

~~~
scarface74
Over inflation is mostly on the west coast because of the inflated salaries of
tech companies that until now, didn’t want people to work remotely. There is
no reason that a software company couldn’t have all of its employees work from
anywhere in the country.

As far as I know, the entire cloud consulting division of the three major
cloud companies always had plenty of by default remote jobs. I know that AWS
does (that’s where I work).

------
DoreenMichele
Pointless blurb that won't get traction:

This is part of why I blog and run r/GigWorks and r/ClothingStartups: I
figured out how to make money from the street while very ill.

This is solvable. We just aren't working on the right things.

We need to get people working again in a way that doesn't spread the virus. We
need to work on resolving our housing supply issues. We've torn down a million
SROs and not replaced them. We've largely zoned Missing Middle housing out of
existence.

We collectively know how to create affordable market rate housing in walkable
neighborhoods. We just basically choose not to in the US.

And now it's A Real Crisis, not "just a few _losers_ with _personal problems_
". We need to get our head out the sand and stop pretending we are too stupid
to fix this, good god. We aren't too stupid. That's not the issue.

~~~
kennyadam
I'm not very comfortable with the answer to this problem being 'how to make
homeless and sick people keep working'. America desperately needs better
social security nets. (for example) Seeing Bezos net worth skyrocket by
billions at the same time as millions of people losing their homes is
absolutely disgusting.

~~~
watertom
If we didn’t have social security the country would be a dumpster fire right
now.

Employer provided healthcare is the dumbest idea ever, it should be outlawed.
I don’t care what it’s replaced with just as long as it’s gone.

~~~
RhysU
Social Security was created in 1935. How would you characterize the 159
American years preceding its creation ?

~~~
dredmorbius
For 86 of those years, ownership of another human being was the law of the
land and for all of it rampant discrimination against any not of English
Protestant ancestry was pervasive, so for a start there was that.

From 1862 to 1934, over 1.6 million homesteads were created through the
Federal Government. For a filing fee of $18 (~$200--$500 in 2020), and five
years sweat equity, a 21 year old male could claim 5-640 acres by building on
and working it. Homesteading continued as a vastly reduced practice, though
remaining an option, until 1976 in the lower 48 and Alaska until 1986. Open
range provided for additional livilihood based on unowned acreage for
ranchers, and mining stakes were prospected throughout the West. But by 1890,
the notion that there was unsettled land for the taking had passed; the
frontier was closed.

Not that this access was available to all; blacks, Native Americans (this was
originally _their_ land), Mexicans, Chinese, Catholics, and other non-Anglo
groups were routinely denied rights to land.

Prior to 1860, unorganised squatting was common. A Free Soil movement, based
in part of free or cheap land grants to white farmers also emerged.

Too at the time, wage labour was relatively uncommon -- many households were
effectively their own businesses, most farmsteads, others practicing trades or
professions. The rise of factories, railroads, steel mills, and coal mines
gradually shifted this balance. But exposure to the money economy was often
lower than now. Less upside perhaps, but also less systemic risk for most
households.

Life expectencies were far lower than today: 49.3 years in 1901, 60.2 in 1934,
78.8 today. Pensions tended to be private, often failing, or support offered
through multigenerational households (an idea whose time may be returning).
Those living to old age often found themselves with no means of subsistence.
Social Security had a solid basis in real lived pain.

There were frequent economic crises and panics.

You may have heard of the Joads. There's a truth behind that fiction.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath)

------
Skunkleton
To put this in perspective, the linked data shows that 43% of all renters are
at risk of eviction, which is 17M households. The 11M number is just in the
next four months.

------
ithkuil
In Italy landlords have to pay taxes for the rents even if the tenant doesn't
pay (the government defaults to not trusting citizens to declare income), thus
creating a pressure to formally evict tenants. (This problem was fixed a few
years ago for residential rents but it's still a problem for commercial
rents). How does this work in the US? How does it compare, as a landlord, to
face months of likely vacant property versus months of months continued use
but with missed payments?

~~~
Pfhreak
In the US, landlords would still pay property tax, but not income taxes if
they didn't collect any income. Things might get complicated if you rent
significantly below market rates though I'm not sure about that.

The US, unfortunately, has an ethos that failure to pay rent is almost always
an individuals personal failure. This makes it culturally acceptable
(generally) to evict someone who can't make rent because it is a moral failing
of the renter (and not, say, the outcome of systemic failures beyond the
renters control.) So while landlords probably benefit from getting a portion
of their normal rent, they are under significant cultural pressure to evict
people who can't pay.

~~~
cman1444
I would hesitate to say that there is "cultural" pressure to evict a tenant.
Landlords aren't evicting people because their friends tell them to. They
evict people because they think they will have better luck trying to find a
new tenant who will hopefully be able to pay their rent.

------
codingdave
Clearly, this many evictions would be a bad thing. But being allowed to evict
is only the first of multiple roadblocks. The local eviction court has to
grant the eviction, and law enforcement has to show up to actually force them
out. Even if all 11M evictions get approved, I don't foresee law enforcement
having the bandwidth to make them all happen. When I was a landlord, even
under normal times, it would take weeks to get an appointment set with the
sheriff to show up and force the eviction.

I'm not saying this is a good situation, I'm saying that there is more to this
process than just stamping some paperwork, with multiple opportunities to slow
it down.

~~~
ryan_lane
Depends on where the eviction is occurring (some states/cities/counties are
faster/slower). When I worked for a property manager, you didn't have to wait
weeks for the deputies to show up. If an eviction was scheduled for a date, a
deputy is there. The landlord hires contractors to move everything onto the
curb, and the deputy is there to ensure there's no violence. If there's really
this many evictions, they'll likely group them so that less deputies will be
required.

Hopefully lots of things will slow it down, but I doubt that's one of them.
The only thing that will definitely slow it down is to have longer
moratoriums.

------
schoolornot
I've forever been a proponent of personal responsibility. Saving a few bucks
here and there and building up an emergency fund that can carry you through
6-8 months. With that said, the current situation seems untenable. I'm curious
to read other opinions and suggestions here because to me the only solution
appears to be a re-opening and relaxing of current restrictions in order to
restore economic activity.

Surprising enough, all this chatter about evictions and missed payments hasn't
rocked the US housing market one bit. In fact, prices are up.

~~~
blablablerg
With the rising costs of living and low wages we have seen in the last couple
decennia, making ends meet is troublesome for a lot of people, let alone the
having the capacity to save for an emergency fund.

Personal responsibility is easy to say, but when you are born rich or
advantaged you need minimal personal responsibility to get by and when born
poor you can have all the personal responsibility you want and still get
f*cked over. The problem is bigger than personal responsibility. Social
security is very poor in the US compared to modern European countries.

------
kwhitefoot
Surely 2.3 M households is at least 1% and perhaps close to 2% of the US
population. If that is the case _and_ if it were evenly distributed pretty
much everyone would know someone who had received such a notice.

How can this be happening in a developed country?

So I suppose that it is very unevenly distributed so that most people are
blissfully unaware that it is happening.

------
mnm1
This is yet another failing of the federal government. They have the funds to
bail people out just like they did in the last recession. They just won't do
it. I hope people remember that when they are on the streets. Their government
could have helped in the worst crisis in almost a century, but it didn't. It
chose to bail out big companies instead. It chose to reduce the extra
unemployment to force people back to risking their lives. These would have
been easy issues to fix (the unemployment even was temporarily) but our
representatives chose not to. Two months the Senate has been sitting on the
next corona bill and have done nothing while Americans suffer and now are
completely fucked eviction and unemployment wise.

They also didn't do shit to fight the virus itself and instead actively sought
to spread it as much as possible.

~~~
sdinsn
> They have the funds to bail people out just like they did in the last
> recession.

Uh, what? The US is $26 trillion in debt.

We also are bailing people out anyway- the extra federal unemployment made
unemployment benefits worth more than workers' average pay.

> Two months the Senate has been sitting on the next corona bill

Because the first bill doesn't expire until the end of this month.

> They also didn't do shit to fight the virus itself and instead actively
> sought to spread it as much as possible.

It's the people that chose to not wear masks. It's the people that chose to go
to events and go on vacation.

~~~
mnm1
> We also are bailing people out anyway- the extra federal unemployment made
> unemployment benefits worth more than workers' average pay.

We had no problem bailing out a ton of businesses that didn't need it, so
clearly there is no shortage of money. Also, making more money from
unemployment during a pandemic is a feature, not a bug. People need to stay at
home. That's the whole, entire goal.

> Because the first bill doesn't expire until the end of this month.

The checks have stopped. Unless you think they can get the bill passed and
checks sent and delivered by this Friday, then there will be a gap that most
people can't cover. So the Senate has indeed decided not to care as they are
quite aware this is the case and have had two months to deal with it, yet
refused to. So it's irrelevant when "the bill" expires when people aren't
getting anymore money already and there's no plan for them to get any in the
near future.

> It's the people that chose to not wear masks. It's the people that chose to
> go to events and go on vacation.

I agree. But the government has the biggest responsibility. And they haven't
done anything but sabotage the process.

------
onetimemanytime
11,000,000 * $1500 = $16.5 Billion a month. Since we've gotten to the point
where we talk about $trillion deficits and bailout, this will not break the
bank. Yes, why not give me too money, they'll just stop working and live rent
free..etc etc. All valid points, but Covid is a real thing and the economy is
shot.

or the government can send anyone up to a certain income limit in need $1500
_per household_ for 6 months. If they sent to all 128 million households it
would be about $1.2 Trillion for 6 months. If I was a politician, this is what
I'd do for votes /popularity since the purse is being opened anyway

~~~
sdinsn
The federal government is already sending out $2400 per month to people who
are unemployed.

~~~
onetimemanytime
how so?

~~~
sdinsn
What do you mean, "how so"? Federal unemployment is $2400/mo.

------
Pfhreak
It's well past time we built and maintained affordable social housing in this
country. Not gigantic, underfunded, monolithic projects but appropriately
scaled, tax funded, distributed apartments.

It's been successful in many parts of the world, including in the US. It won't
be enough to solve this immediate crisis, but maybe it helps us land on our
feet better and builds resilience for the next time.

~~~
hkai
What problem are you hoping to solve through this?

We did it in Hong Kong. Over 30% of the population lives in virtually free
housing rented from the government.

They don't have an incentive to work. They get to live in one of the most
expensive cities in the world for free, without contributing.

Meanwhile, those who have a job slightly better than McDonald's are not
eligible for this generous giveaway, and are punished by being forced to live
in tiny private apartments that they are unlikely to ever afford to buy.

Is this what you consider justice? Punish the working class?

~~~
cloogshicer
In the major European city I live in, 62% of people live in social housing.
Most people still seem to want to work here.

Even if there were a few 'leeches' here and there I'd gladly subsidize them
for the benefit of a social safety net.

Personally, I also wouldn't consider those people leeches at all. Your
assumption seems to be that everyone who works is automatically contributing
to society - with all the bullshit jobs around, I find this questionable at
the least.

~~~
teetertater
I just moved there, and it's a fantastic place to live/work

------
MR4D
The real gem in this article is the Eviction Estimation tool linked to from
the second paragraph:

[https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNzRhYjg2NzAtMGE1MC00N...](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNzRhYjg2NzAtMGE1MC00NmNjLTllOTMtYjM2NjFmOTA4ZjMyIiwidCI6Ijc5MGJmNjk2LTE3NDYtNGE4OS1hZjI0LTc4ZGE5Y2RhZGE2MSIsImMiOjN9)

------
torgian
What I find darkly hilarious is that these landlords won’t find anyone to
replace those they evicted... because nobody can pay the rent

~~~
Raidion
That's not quite true, but it will lower rental rates, which will impact
selling prices, which will impact capital reserves, which will impact...

~~~
wasdfff
It wont lower them. Stagnate, maybe, but rents really don’t drop.

------
pjdemers
The small city I live in is paying people's rent to avoid having small
landlords go bankrupt. Because bankruptcy owned buildings can stay vacant for
years, while the courts figure out who gets what. All that time, no property
taxes are paid.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
So the city is paying peoples' rent in order to _save money_. Interesting.
Nice longer-term thinking.

May I ask which city?

------
rondennis
I really can't believe this is happening. The pandemic is making people so
desperate.

~~~
harambae
>I really can't believe this is happening

That's because it's not. "could be evicted over the next four months" is the
phrasing in the article, and its wildly unlikely.

Look at the posts at /r/realestate. They show the Redfin/Zillow statistics and
people selling their houses for more than last year in every major metro area
I've been interested in. There's also a lot of concern that lack of
construction during covid will lead to a shortage.

If there's going to be 11M households evicted, why are real estate prices
doing better than ever? Because all of America is clueless except this one
brilliant Fast Company journalist?

~~~
webninja
10 reasons why real estate prices are going up:

1) Home buyers are more likely to be younger people and older people are more
likely to be home sellers. Younger people (buyers) are more likely to be
active now and willing to move.

2) People are rethinking the small studio apartment they were quarantined in
and are looking for better or larger places to WFH in.

3) Money is usually a chief concern for sellers but with the mortgage
forbearance and deferral options why would anyone bother to sell their
appreciating asset that they can keep and live almost for free in?

4) Interest rates dropped to near 0% and will remain there for about 2 years.
That substantially boosted home prices.

5) Some people living in apartments felt that it was hard to social distance
there so they bought a house with land and separation.

6) Substantially more free time to browse houses for some people now!

7) The inflation rate is increasing. Fed target is to overshoot 2% to get to
3% or more annual inflation.

8) Old people aren’t interested in moving out to nursing homes and end-of-life
care facilities now where cases are perceived to be more concentrated and
undesirable.

9) The Census is happening this year and the government would prefer if people
move around less to keep their numbers accurate.

10) Homes containing unevictable tenants can’t be freed up for the housing
market to consume. Even all the bad tenants that mistreat and mishandle their
landlord’s rental homes get to keep mishandling their home while you have to
keep looking for an unoccupied affordable home.

There is a massive shortage of homes in certain parts of this country so
existing homes keep getting bid up and up. Even if some of these reasons
disappear, the others will still remain.

On the first home I offered 5k over asking price when there were 10 other
offers and was bid out by 1 other guy. The second home I offered 10k over
asking price and narrowly beat out the 10 other offers. With that many offers,
the housing supply could double in my area and housing prices would still keep
going up. It’s a very hot market and I don’t see it shifting anytime soon. Not
at least until we see the Momths of Inventory metric (which is a leading
indicator for home price direction) increase to over 6 months and that might
not happen until next year or beyond.

------
Bombthecat
I wonder how many voted for trump, and even living on the street, probably
vote for him again...

As a German, it is really hard to feel sorry for you guys over there..

~~~
sumedh
When you have propaganda running 24x7 on TV, you do not get the full picture.
Lot of Americans do believe that Trump is doing a good job because the TV says
so.

~~~
Bombthecat
My down votrs already shows, that propaganda works.

As a German i also can say: been there, done that :)

~~~
ShamelessC
It's possible you're getting down voted even by people who hate Trump. Keep in
mind, he lost the popular vote by 3 million and has never had decent approval
ratings.

How is it hard to feel sorry for us? We didn't _all_ bring this on ourselves.
Certainly not the majority of us.

~~~
Bombthecat
Not all Germans killed jews or supported hitler.

But we all know how that played out..

------
BMSmnqXAE4yfe1
Not gonna happen. Brrrrrrr.

//\-------------------

Long version for HN moderators:

In the current climate, I believe, the outcome suggested in the title of the
article, could be largely avoided, if suitable monetary policies are timely
introduced, via responsible bipartisan legislation.

------
Proven
Won't happen, the risk is 0. Because the Fed's creeping mandate and upcoming
elections. The both parties want to buy votes.

If you like your fiat money, you can keep your fiat money (and your Big
Government). By the time this is over savers will be completely destroyed.

~~~
pengaru
> By the time this is over savers will be completely destroyed.

As a saver who owns his home outright, this statement cracks me up.

My outlook on this situation is that I can weather the storm for _years_ with
zero income and stay in food and shelter throughout without government aid.

The folks with little savings and high rent or expensive mortgages are who I'm
concerned about. They seem far more likely to be "destroyed" in the coming
months/years.

Us savers can either sit pretty and watch the chaos, buy the dip and profit
handsomely from the recovery, or go shopping for cheap homes.

~~~
danhak
The parent seems to be implying that fed policy will continue to drive down
the value of the dollar.

In this scenario savers get crushed as inflation whittles away the value of
cash while asset prices climb. And the “folks with little savings and
expensive mortgages” that you allude to actually come out on top.

~~~
pengaru
> the “folks with little savings and expensive mortgages” that you allude to
> actually come out on top.

What good is an expensive mortgage when you can't pay it, lose your home,
_and_ now have bad credit preventing you from capitalizing on all the new
opportunities created by all the foreclosures and vacant rentals?

The savers have _options_. At any given moment a saver can decide to buy a
pile of stock, or go get a mortgage. Why would we sit idly by while inflation
gets so bad it no longer makes sense to hold cash? It doesn't happen
overnight, there will be plenty of interesting opportunities in the mean time
available to those with good credit and/or a pile of cash.

------
hnarn
11M out of the current US population is 3.3% Think about that for a second. If
this article is correct, more than _three percent_ of the US population may
become homeless in only four months.

It's estimated that about 2M people were homeless during the great depression
in the US, which is only about 1.6% of the population at that time.

I don't enjoy sounding like an alarmist but at this point I can't help it: my
opinion is that if the US does not introduce something pretty close to
democratic socialist policies soon to ensure there's a safety net to take care
of these people, massive civil unrest is all but guaranteed.

~~~
morceauxdebois
Social safety net is not "democratic socialism". This is not some exceptional,
ground breaking policy, the US is just catching up to the rest of the planet.
Americans have to stop poisoning online political discourse with their
illiteracy.

~~~
hnarn
I’m not American, and yes it is democratic socialism (social democracy).
What’s politically illiterate is avoiding the S-word at all costs when what
you’re talking about is wealth redistribution.

------
peacemaker
In some countries they banned landlords from evicting tenants during the
pandemic to stop stuff like this happening. They then asked banks to provide
mortgage holidays so that the landlords could afford to keep non paying
tenants. In my opinion this is a good example of government intervention for
the greater good.

Is there any political will in the US to do the same? Could something like
this ever be considered in congress or would it be seen as too 'socialist'
maybe?

~~~
jackson1442
I wouldn't be surprised to see a bill with mortgage holidays, etc pass the
House. The Senate is far too conservative to even let this go to a vote,
though; McConnell just put a relief bill to a vote that dramatically reduces
unemployment assistance ($600/wk -> $200/wk), and I doubt we'll see anything
better.

~~~
flywheel
The Republicans have always been the problem. They are rat-fucking the country
and laughing about it - McConnell laughed when asked about unemployment
assistance - he has no intention of helping Americans. He is a ghoul. We are
doomed as long as the Republicans have power.

~~~
logicchains
The Republicans aren't the ones pushing so aggressively to shut down the
economy and destroy these people's livelihoods. Unemployment is significantly
higher in states with stronger lockdowns
([https://www.aier.org/article/unemployment-far-worse-in-
lockd...](https://www.aier.org/article/unemployment-far-worse-in-lockdown-
states-data-show/)), and Blue states generally have the strongest lockdowns.

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
I mean...you understand why the lockdowns are happening, right?

Other countries are seeing COVID cases dropping, while the USA just keeps
going up and up because lockdowns and proper masking and distancing procedures
are being resisted.

By arguing against lockdowns, you're implying that an increased death toll is
an acceptable cost to save the economy.

