I suggest the share of those who cannot meet the rent will be higher in the “did not report” group.
Very hard on the basis of these numbers to estimate, but this is probably a colossal problem with huge implications.
Turkey Jones
2 years ago
What are the baseline answers prior to covid for such questions. Suspect there are many that always question if they can pay rent.
How is a “renter” defined? Is it person who signs the lease, if so 111M renters seems high.
There are plenty of work opportunities out there, obviously renters have not felt the need to get a job to pay rent. Not surprised if these people would give a negative answer regarding ability to pay rent as they don’t want to work.
Trying to prevent natural market forces is what socialist economies do. It was understandable early in pandemic when there was a shutdown of economy, but not today.
Morr314
2 years ago
You also have to add in the millions on unemployment benefits that will end on 9/6/21.
I guess the one benefit would be is that there will be a lot of used couches and lazy boy chairs available after the evictions start and a lot of work boots in the shoe stores that were passed over during the looting over the past year.
Interesting , craigslist/pawn shops will be overflowing with merchandise/furniture . Supply chains will flow again , brilliant . partial /s
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
Cat 5 winds measured at landfall. Unprecedented. Air quality at 300 or worse here.
Brian Reilly
2 years ago
There is NOT going to be a million (or more) evictions all of a sudden in the US. First, the court systems can’t handle the surge, and won’t pretend to. Second, the courts are NOT going to order evictions of a bunch of black and brown people. If they did, the bailiffs/deputies are NOT going enforce the orders. Which won’t be issued, because the courts are corrupt, not stupid.
What WILL happen is judges ordering some kind of re-distribution of housing resources, and distribution of public “funds” to compensate landlords (small fry) who will lose ownership of their property.
bowwow
2 years ago
It’s hard to believe the government gave any thought to really wanting to prevent evictions. They gave subsidies to some tenants out of work. Preventing evictions should mean the government sends the landlord money to cover for lost rent when relevant circumstances apply. Otherwise, don’t bother printing the money for an eviction moratorium.
As the Supreme Court noted, the states have jurisdiction over rental evictions. This was probably part of the bail-out money or security for the bail-out money.
I agree AND as QTPie said , there was additional money in the unemployment package to cover rent . Now the taxpayers are paying twice;; once for the landlords and once for the tenants. eviction bans are sub-optimal .
shamrock
2 years ago
What will the affect be on rental prices? Seems deflationary to me.
TexasTim65
2 years ago
This whole fiasco is part the hidden cost of shutting down the economy for Covid (remember WAY back when it was just going to be 2 weeks. LOL).
We’ll never know how many lives were saved by shutting down the economy but we will be able to add the cost of all this into the rest of the bill (UI benefits + extra UI benefits, free money for businesses, the extra child care payments and so on). I bet all told it ends up over a trillion dollars. Given there are about 650K deaths, we could have just given every family who lost someone $1 million dollars and we’d have spent less (650 billion) and gotten more.
How did you propose to force people to open and patronize businesses that voluntarily closed for the safety of the employees and customers? The pandemic caused the majority of the shutdowns, not the governments.
For voluntary closures there would be nothing. It was their choice and choices have consequences.
But many industries were forced to close and stay closed for months if not years now. Those would not have happened and many people would have continued to patronize those businesses
It is hard to say….and I wasn’t in favor of the lockdown….but it was one of the few options we had going into this, and so I can be forgiving if the benefit v. harm is hard to parse now. We have the benefit of hindsight, which was not available in the spring of 2020.
I don’t favor lockdowns now, but unless the delta variant peaks and falls off, we are going to hear some calls for it. And even if it isn’t tried again, many businesses will be wiped out as people get more scared and go back into hunker-down mode.
The obvious solution now is forced vaccination. I don’t favor it, but I can see how it might help a lot. I do favor punitive financial incentives for the unvaxxed, as well as social shunning. The unvaxxed are getting more marginalized every day but most of the unvaxxed now are committed completely to their bad decision.
I can envision running them through squeeze chutes like we did for every cow in Texas back when we were trying to prevent herd loss from Bang’s Disease when I was a kid. I’m not advocating for that, but it does appeal to me in a purely angry and evil way. Forgive me Lord, I have sinned in my heart.
The problem with marginalizing a segment of society is that we’ve already seen how this plays out with African Americans (and LGBTQ as well). It doesn’t end well.
Biden claimed he wanted to be a unite the country so doing something like this most certainly not unite the country.
“I do favor punitive financial incentives for the unvaxxed, as well as
social shunning. The unvaxxed are getting more marginalized every day
but most of the unvaxxed now are committed completely to their bad
decision.”
I didn’t make a bad decision by not getting Covaxxed. I did not risk the serious adverse affects that those who got the Covaxxine, did. I am taking nutraceuticals that reduce my risk.
The real comparison should be Covaxxinated vs no early invervention, not Covax vs no Covax.
“Dr. Ozaki cited evidence from African nations that have utilized Ivermectin during the pandemic. He stated:
… if we look at COVID numbers in countries that give Ivermectin, the number of cases is 134.4/100,000 and the number of deaths is 2.2/100,000. African countries which do not distribute Ivermectin: 950.6 cases per 100,000 and 29.3 deaths per 100,000.”
Six000mileyear
2 years ago
I don’t understand how any moratorium on evictions can stand since the Supreme Court clearly explained the right to property includes the right to exclude. Any state creating its own moratorium would be in violation of the US Constitution based on the hierarchy of law.
Not true. The USSC ruled that the CDC was not granted the power under some unrelated legislation. I do not think that the USSC ruled on the basis of the takings clause. Perhaps landlords in these states may sue in federal court based on the takings clause. As far as I know, the USSC has not taken up the issue. Any relief for landlords based on the takings clause would probably take many years.
StukiMoi
2 years ago
“they could have done something sensible like guarantee landlords they would be paid.”
With whose money???? Pelosi’s?
Guaranteeing anyone getting paid from other people’s money is never, ever, absolutely never, “sensible.”
Heck, in the middle of a poorly understood pandemic (something which is arguably no longer true), even “guaranteeing” landlords access to taxpayers money to pay courts and cops to evict people, is going way too far. Back in the beginning of the pandemic, the goal was to get people to stay put. Not move. Not breathe on anyone else. Not see anyone else. Not open the door to anyone else. Etc. Just sit there frozen. Until more/better information became available.
Now that things are better understood, especially with pretty good evidence that vaccines mean being evicted, and perhaps having to be in the same room as someone else, does not meaningfully risk causing sudden death, it does make sense to start returning to more normal proceedings.
When you freeze the country because of nuclear fallout killing anyone who sticks their nose outside, or because some virus which you don’t know much about may do the same; people dependent on the state “evicting” others for their livelihoods, simply lose out. People sometimes do. It’s simply a cost/risk of being in a business temporarily at odds with prudent public health management. It’s certainly noone elses duty to pay for it.
prumbly
2 years ago
The “eviction ban” has run roughshod over centuries of contract law.
We watch as the rule of law, democracy and freedom are systematically dismantled in front of our eyes.
PostCambrian
2 years ago
You would think that in the same amount of time that vaccines have been developed and distributed that a payment system to landlords could have been developed. If writing some words on a piece of paper and voting on it takes longer than accomplishing actual real work, then we are doomed.
QTPie
2 years ago
The vast majority of folks got plenty of money from the govt. during the pandemic to be able to cover their rent, even without counting the $45 billion extra rent assistance. Unfortunately, knowing they cannot be evicted, many chose to spend these funds on other things.
Cat 5 winds measured at landfall. Unprecedented. Air quality at 300 or worse here.
It’s hard to believe the government gave any thought to really wanting to prevent evictions. They gave subsidies to some tenants out of work. Preventing evictions should mean the government sends the landlord money to cover for lost rent when relevant circumstances apply. Otherwise, don’t bother printing the money for an eviction moratorium.
As the Supreme Court noted, the states have jurisdiction over rental evictions. This was probably part of the bail-out money or security for the bail-out money.
social shunning. The unvaxxed are getting more marginalized every day
but most of the unvaxxed now are committed completely to their bad
decision.”