Housing doesn’t have to be a commodity at all. It can easily be an unconditional human right.
I don't think you know what a commodity is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
In fact, I think it would make more sense to say, "As a practical matter, housing could only be made available as an unconditional human right if there is [at least a subset of all] housing which IS a commodity."
In strictest terms, real estate can never be a commodity because it is all unique. Commodities have to have "full or substantial fungibility", which can't exist when housing occupies a fixed physical location, which is unique. (So perhaps some housing could be a "commodity" even in a strict sense if it could be moved around. . . Think mobile homes.)
An unconditional human right... where? Does everyone have a right to housing in the uber popular San Francisco? Does everyone have a right to beachfront property in Hawaii? Or if you don't have a house are you provided one in North Dakota?
More people want to live in San Francisco than there are houses. There's going to be winners and losers. I would love to radically increase the number of immigrants we let into the country. Where do they have a right to housing? If that housing doesn't exist who is obligated to build it to give away?
We also have similar discussions around many negative rights. E.g., in the US 4th Amendment rights are subject to all sorts of practical limitations.
That rights are complicated to implement doesn't mean that they shoudn't be rights.
The solution is, to give a plot of land to every human being that turns 18. there's enough land to do this. In most cases they wont want to live exactly in that spot. but, they can sell it or rent it out and use that money to move somewhere else. That's right folks, this is one of those situations where we can actually create wealth out of thin air, just by using up all that land that's been locked up for so long.
Which makes it all the more important that you correctly identify and apply the mechanisms that push a place towards one end or the other.
>Everyone needs it, and we all have incentive to reduce costs—except landlords.
64% of housing units are owner-occupied [0]. These households are not landlords, yet they are incentivized to raise property values.
[0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/VET605217
One system that is being tried in some region in China is you buy your house from the government and sell it back. This keeps things democratic and market free. Landlords should be cast into the dustbin of history.
Requirements: - be a citizen - get married
The government will then build a flat for you and hand you the keys 5 years later for about a fourth of the private market price.
Of course you need an economy that can pay for all this, so it won't be universally applicable
EDIT: I thought that was a meme and it's not—i'm referring to the growth of the middle class and multi-room houses.
I think everyone in Hong Kong would happily live with their parents for 5 years if it means they can buy their own flat afterwards.
Renting is awesome!
Why do you want to force me to buy a house? I don't want to do that. I want to rent one.
They should feel free to purchase and house whoever they want with their tax dollars.
As long as we are taking stuff from people, what makes the most sense is to so it equally through taxes, and compensate people fairly by purchasing houses.
Or even better, the government could pay money to build more houses.
Wedging that initiative is a very uphill battle.