Evicted from the ownership society
In the Vanity Fair article about Fannie Mae’s Last Stand, the slang term ‘œhousers’ was used to describe the Fannie people who believed that better housing is the cure to all of society’s ills.
Most housers were likely supportors of the ownership society; a model encouraged by George W. Bush that values personal responsibility, economic liberty, and the owning of property. Some would argue this was purely a political strategy. For example, see this article in The Nation:
Well before the ownership society had a neat label, its creation was central to the success of the right-wing economic revolution around the world. The idea was simple: if working-class people owned a small piece of the market–a home mortgage, a stock portfolio, a private pension–they would cease to identify as workers and start to see themselves as owners, with the same interests as their bosses. That meant they could vote for politicians promising to improve stock performance rather than job conditions. Class consciousness would be a relic.
While others (this article at Cato.org), define an ownership society in economic terms:
People have known for a long time that individuals take better care of things they own. Aristotle wrote, ‘œWhat belongs in common to the most people is accorded the least care: they take thought for their own things above all, and less about things common, or only so much as falls to each individually.’ And we all observe that homeowners take better care of their houses than renters do. That’s not because renters are bad people; it’s just that you’re more attentive to details when you stand to profit from your house’s rising value or to suffer if it deteriorates.
Just as homeownership creates responsible homeowners, widespread ownership of other assets creates responsible citizens. People who are owners feel more dignity, more pride, and more confidence. They have a stronger stake, not just in their own property, but in their community and their society. Geoff Mulgan, a top aide to British prime minister Tony Blair, explains, ‘œThe left always tended to underestimate the importance of ownership, and how hard it is for a democracy that does not have widespread ownership of assets to be truly democratic. ‘¦To escape from poverty you need assets’”assets which you can put to work. There is a good deal of historical evidence’¦as well as abundant contemporary evidence, that ownership tends to encourage self-esteem and healthy habits of behaviour, such as acting more for the long term, or taking education more seriously.’
Unfortunately, the mortgage crisis was spurred on when Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge and encouraged the real estate and mortgage industries to help close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. We all know how that played out.
I never was a Bush supporter, but at my core, I’m a houser and understand the benefits of home ownership. Paying off my mortgage will have a long term impact on my bottom line.
Does wealth through home ownership cure all of society ills? Probably not. But I think a lot of good comes through owning your own home. Do you agree? Or was it just some artificial notion that prompted the housing bubble?
Photo credit: stock.xchng.
I agree- and feel that the environment is most benefited by sense of ownership. While an undergrad, I took an environmental policy class that exposed me to Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. Ownership drives people to actively perform cost benefit analysis on everything they do- without it, I’m afraid that society’s awareness of its own surroundings and impacts on everything from water table to productivity becomes degraded.
Hi Nina, Interesting post. I am currently working on a paper about some of the same issues.
Both the quotes that you provide demonstrate that the desire for home ownership is not only about economics but also about regulating behavior. The quote from the Cato Institute seems to be more about behavior than anything else. They want people to invest in a home and all the normative things that go with it because that is the path to “good” citizenship.
There was a program called the Own Your Own Home campaign at the beginning of the 20th century. Its advertisements equated patriotism with home ownership. Within patriotism and home ownership were the social values that the campaign wanted to promote–heterosexual family, white, female homemaker, male breadwinner, consumer, hard worker, etc. I think that the push for home ownership in the early part of the current century had similar goals.
Nina, great question. The idea that home ownership helps people to stop identifying as workers an start identifying as owners really bothers me. Really? The working class will stop identifying as workers? Does that mean, then, that labor unions will cease to exist? I mean, if the workers start to identify with their bosses, they’re less likely to agitate for better wages and better working conditions. I can see why this wold be desirable from management’s POV, but it makes me wonder why anyone int he working class would want to own their own home.
I think a better motivation for home ownership is that people want a sense of belonging and a sense of stability. It’s nice to be a part of a community and have a place of your own. I think this is a much better explanation than what you’re quoting from the Cato Institute or from The Nation. But I’m a little bit on the far left side of the political spectrum, so that’s probably a bias in my line of thinking about this.
Meridith: I hadn’t considered the environmental correlation. Thanks for pointing that out.
Shannon: Not only was it about patriotism, but home ownership was positioned as an expectation (a life-event) for young Americans. Even today, home ownership is billed as part of the American dream.
Serena: You make an excellent point about workers vs. owners. The Nation article actually is quite good and while it’s never quite reaches the far left, it ends on a note that you might be able to agree with: