1. They never had a home before so they kept living like that
2. They had a home before but then they couldn't afford it (or whatever other reason)
I doubt we have a lot of case 1 (born without a home). For case 2, I doubt building more homes work, because if you are homeless, that not only means that you can't afford buying a home, but you cannot afford renting one as well, and you are most likely jobless. I doubt building more homes are going to solve the issues. For case 2 you need more social housing and other support.
Luckily, your personal thoughts from first principles with zero review of the available data is not all we have to go on!
There is research[0] about causes of homelessness and about the effect[1] of house building on homelessness.
This is a well-studied issue, that, as the linked article likes to point out, people are just opposed to the solution for reasons of personal interest and (to me, bizzare) bias. Building houses reduces homelessness, increases supply for everyone, and lowers housing costs for everyone. It has no economic downsides, and significant personal upsides for everyone (cheaper housing and more options for you, dear reader).
The point of that second link above is that any amount of housing, at any price point, lowers cost of housing for everyone, especially lower-income participants in the market.
Housing is in such brutally short supply (goes for major cities in North America as well as Europe) that not only can we not afford to be picky, but in terms of actual effect it doesn't matter: social housing is as effective as luxury housing. Sometimes it is _less_ effective at achieving social goals, if rich people are also trying to get their hands on the same housing stock, because there is not enough to meet demand at the top end of the market.
I think people misunderstand the state of the housing market: it is brutally expensive because of chronic, decades long undersupply, not building enough to meet _new_ demand each year, thus the "debt" in supply has compounded massively. This has strong and weird market effects, such that building lots of cheap housing at huge scale is only a partial solution (and the scale actually needed to alleviate the problem is much larger than anyone is actually willing to contemplate right now).
> The point of that second link above is that any amount of housing, at any price point, lowers cost of housing for everyone, especially lower-income participants in the market.
Not unless you force developers to build even when it's unprofitable (or not profitable enough)
There's probably almost 100 million Americans existing under rental stress. This prevents them from being able to save and invest. That means they have no insurance policy if they lose their job. If rent was lower, which it is in places that build more, then this is less likely to happen.
This is a fair point. And better protection regulations too so owners cannot hike rents as they so wish. We have it in Canada so not sure about the US, but I guess at least some states have some sort of protection.
A lot of people become homeless even while they have jobs. They can almost make rent but then some incident happens and they get evicted. Once you've been evicted it becomes remarkably difficult to rent anywhere. Boom, now you are living in your car for the foreseeable future.
> For case 2, I doubt building more homes work, because if you are homeless, that not only means that you can't afford buying a home, but you cannot afford renting one as well, and you are most likely jobless.
It's not always all or nothing - sometimes you might be able to afford rent if rent were cheaper.
> For case 2 you need more social housing and other support.
"Build more homes" includes social aka public aka "affordable housing".
1. They never had a home before so they kept living like that
2. They had a home before but then they couldn't afford it (or whatever other reason)
I doubt we have a lot of case 1 (born without a home). For case 2, I doubt building more homes work, because if you are homeless, that not only means that you can't afford buying a home, but you cannot afford renting one as well, and you are most likely jobless. I doubt building more homes are going to solve the issues. For case 2 you need more social housing and other support.