This is why I advocate removing the market and doing a substantial fraction of housing as public housing. Other countries like Sweden (iirc) do this.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Adam-Smith-against-landlords?share...
The Soviet Union didn't have landlords to deal with, but the housing situation was not any better - just instead of apartments being unaffordable, you'd get in a queue for public housing that was like 20 years long...
At the beginning of their project, many people lived in huts so the step up to small stark apartments was a huge step up for millions. After a few decades though, they appear to have failed to improve their housing infrastructure at a fast enough rate. I don't know exactly why.
Some sources I've read say that once Krushev (and his base of support) were in power, they redirected resources into consumer goods to try to match western lifestyles too early. The previous plan was to constantly reinvest in heavy industry which creates exponential growth by providing the material basis for more heavy industry. This shifting of resources away reduced the rate of growth as the population continued to grow and resulted in a stagnating standard of living.
This makes intuitive sense to me so far, but I have not done enough research to say this is conclusive.
I would point out that in the US, we have the perception of being able to move wherever you want given enough money. However, in reality we are restricted (queued) by the affordability of housing and moving. The people at the top do have real freedom, but the bottom sections (most of them not present in this highly paid programmer forum) have very little.
That aside, you can't look at economics of USSR in isolation from its politics. For example, under Stalin, most peasants were effectively tied to their land in kolkhozes and sovkhozes - they couldn't freely move to the cities where the better-paying jobs were, and thus couldn't compete for housing there.
The urban centers had something like 10-20% of the population. If the peasants all moved to the cities, there would a) be not enough jobs and b) no food as no one would be producing it.
And I'm not saying that producing those things is an investment, but rather that Soviets consciously invested into heavy industry to the (rather significant) detriment to the rest of the economy, so as to have manufacturing capacity to produce them.
> The urban centers had something like 10-20% of the population. If the peasants all moved to the cities, there would a) be not enough jobs and b) no food as no one would be producing it.
Well, the peasants wanted to move to the cities because the pay and the overall quality of life there was better. Peasants in kolkhozes were essentially serfs, with the government coming and literally taking the "excess" of their food output away. This could have been solved by, you know, actually paying them properly for that food. But why pay when you don't have to, and would rather spend that money elsewhere - e.g. on industrializing the cities?
One thing to keep in mind here is that Bolsheviks were very much not a peasant party. In the Constituent Assembly (which was directly elected by the population), they were a minority, and the most numerous party was the Socialist Revolutionaries, who actually represented the immediate interests of the peasants. Which is precisely why the Assembly did not rubber-stamp the Bolshevik government, and was forcibly dissolved.
Similarly, in village councils, Bolsheviks rarely had a majority - so they introduced kombeds to override those unruly councils. Also, when the council system was first codified in the 1918 Soviet constitution, the Congress of Soviets (i.e. the ultimate legislative body) had one representative for every 25,000 constituents of urban councils, and one representative for every 125,000 constituents of rural councils - i.e. one factory worker effectively had the same voting power as 5 peasants .
These kinds of things is why there were so many large peasant uprisings in Soviet Russia early on, to the point where they had to use poison gas to effectively suppress some of them.
Taxes on money and land holdings. If you spend your money you do not "win" because you pay transaction taxes (VAT etc) or you increase your exposure to risk in the financial markets. If you don't spend your money you lose because you pay the wealth tax for nothing.
The reason why a land value tax works is that land already exists. It's supply is inelastic. The owner of the land did nothing to create it. So taxing the owner for holding onto land will not discourage him from working (building a house and renting it out). The tax revenue can be used to pay for public infrastructure like transportation then the value of the land goes up which will directly fund the infrastructure. A holding fee on land discourages speculation because the expected value of holding onto land without utilizing it is negative. The reason why land speculation is so profitable is that location is a monopoly. As the community around the land develops the speculator benefits off the work other people while doing no work himself. It's especially bad when income taxes are used to fund infrastructure. As the government does more infrastructure projects and charges higher income taxes your rent will go up as the value of the land goes up.
Just a thought experiment: A single tax implementation of land value taxes implies that you've paid your taxes by paying rent. Rent would still be expensive but products and services would be cheap and your income would be higher.
I think it'd make sense. It's beneficial to govt. to keep people productive and ultimately off the street. Hence (in a capitalist system) they want to encourage the market to provide housing to people who would otherwise not get it. If the government came involved into transactions as a guarantor for people in need, and provided incentives and reassurances to landlords that they would not be disadvantaged if they provide housing to those in needs, I believe there would be less homeless people in the street, and more generosity from landlords.
E.g.:
(1) if I have no upside and a high risk exposure in providing housing to a recovering addict, will I do it if I'm then unable to evict that person when they fall back down into addiction? No, I wouldn't, even if in my heart of heart I wish I could help them.
(2) if on another hand, the government came and said "we'll guarantee this market rate, and will facilitate eviction proceedings and pay for repairs if things don't work out", would I be willing to risk it and rent to that person? Probably yes, there would be enough structural support to encourage me to do some goodwill help.
The problem is that the stick presented in (1) is what's going on right now, and there's no carrot (2). It's basically the policy makers telling landlords: all you, don't you dare taking in tenants who are a higher risk! Because if you do, we'll be watching!
* * *
In coordination with this, I think a smart policy would be to combine this idea with something else: instead of trying to build affordable housing projects, try to spread these initiatives around. Avoid the creation of ghettos. If a govt. agency was to support someone's tenancy, the agency should try to spread these people uniformly around town, mixing them with all strata of society, instead of putting all these people in the same geographical area. This would encourage reintegration in a constructive environment. People living in their walled gardens would be annoyed, but ultimately, the people in need of help would be allowed a chance to heal in a safer environment.