In this post I want to consider one dimension of the upcoming crisis -- a housing crisis for the U.S. working class. The growth of indebtedness by the working class, due in part to increasing credit card debt, and the loss of savings, due in part to losses incurred on the stock market -- together with an increase in the size of the industrial reserve army that will accompany the crisis -- must manifest itself in part, imo, as a housing crisis for the working class. Let's consider possible scenarios: 1) Workers are unable to pay back mortgage loans and lose their homes (whether those are houses or condominiums, etc.) when banks foreclose. Relatedly, cities might take over their homes if they are unable to pay property taxes on their houses. 2) Workers are unable to pay their rent on apartments or buildings owned by landlords and real estate companies and are eventually evicted. 3) Workers are unable to pay rent on publicly- owned apartment buildings and are evicted. In all three of the above cases, one probable outcome for a substantial number of workers is to move in with relatives and/or friends. In cities where rents have been increasing this can be already observed as a long-term trend. Sometimes these individuals without housing of their own but living as "guests" in other people's homes are referred to as the "disguised homeless": i.e. individuals who are homeless but don't show up in official statistics on the homeless. For both the individuals who have lost their housing and now share living space with others and for the others who previously occupied housing which was occupied by less individuals, the result is the same: a decrease in the customary standard of living of the working class. Some workers don't have relatives and/or friends that are in a position where they can take them in, and they become (officially) homeless. Since most cities in the US mercilessly harass the homeless, this is an option that has serious risks. The alternative provided by some cities -- the shelter system -- is often more dangerous than living on the street with increased risk of robbery, rape, and disease (such as TB). In the Northern part of the US, it is not unheard of for homeless individuals to freeze to death during the winter. What then are the alternatives (to moving in with friends and/or relatives or being homeless whether on the street or in homeless shelters)? a) increased expenditure by the government on public housing. Due to the current political climate in the US, I view this as the least likely alternative. If it were to happen, it would surely require a massive upsurge by the working-class demanding housing: "Housing is a right". Even if such a movement eventually leads to the construction of new public housing, it is highly doubtful, imo, that the quantity of new public housing would satisfy the housing requirements of the working-class poor. Moreover, even if it were to happen, there would surely be a significant time lag due to the time required for construction. b) the organized labor movement and community organizations could organize an "uneviction movement". Unevictions can take place when the police are prevented physically from carrying out an eviction or when after an eviction the former residents are immediately moved back into their old housing. This is a tactic which has had limited success in some countries and cities, but it requires a high degree of dedication, militancy, and solidarity. I don't expect this to be a possibility in most cities and regions in the US in the immediate future. c) Squatting. This itself can take different forms. In the US in recent years, it has primarily meant moving into abandoned buildings (generally owned by cities for non-payment of taxes). Or, a group of individuals can [illegally] occupy land that they could then build their own shelters on (which are generally make-shift and non- permanent). In either case, these could be organized as collectives or co-operatives. In just about all cases in the US, squatting has met fierce resistance from the state and banks and real estate developers. In some cities, especially NYC, there have been massive confrontations when the police attempt to evict squatters. The one "bright spot" [!] here might be that the crisis will so depress real estate values in some communities that these forces will not be as strident and immediate in moving against these communities. [On the other hand, when the "boom" follows and real estate prices go up, watch out!]. For obvious reasons, then, squatting entails very heavy risks, including imprisonment and/or loss of all valuables. Taken together, I guess I have painted a pretty bleak picture, huh? A working class radicalization is, of course, a possible consequence of the crisis. If that happens -- and of course there is no guarantee that it will happen in the immediate future -- then possible options for the working-class that seem unlikely under present circumstances may become more likely. Am I being too "pessimistic" above or do you believe that it is a "realistic" assessment of the current situation? Of course, the above critically depends on the assumption that the US economy will descend into a severe "slump". It might not. Or, even if there is a slump, it might not be as severe as predicted by Steve K and others. Is the US economy at the edge of a cliff or will there be a relatively minor short-term "adjustment"? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT