Unlike other consumer goods, the high cost of owner-occupied housing blocks access to wealth building (as it's often the primary savings vehicle) and social mobility (as better schools and jobs are concentrated in areas with single-family homes). This makes the housing problem disproportionately impactful.
The administration's key housing initiatives, such as having Fannie/Freddie purchase $200B in MBS and banning institutional buyers of single-family homes, are designed to slightly lower mortgage costs and address political narratives. They are not structural solutions capable of fixing the fundamental undersupply of housing that drives the crisis.
The public's frustration with affordability stems from a psychological disconnect. While wages have risen to match higher prices, people perceive the inflation surge as an unfair loss, failing to connect it to their own income gains. This creates a political challenge where economic data and public sentiment diverge.
Most proposed affordability initiatives, from price caps to rebates, require congressional approval, which is unlikely. The administration's only significant unilateral power lies in housing policy, as it can direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are currently in government conservatorship. This explains the focus on housing-related executive actions.
Beyond zoning laws, the housing crisis is deeply structural. The construction sector has seen little technological innovation or productivity growth for decades. This is compounded by a shortage of buildable land near job centers and a lasting skilled labor deficit created when workers left the industry after the 2008 crash.
The administration's reactive approach to affordability targets specific, highly visible price increases (e.g., eggs, cars) rather than broad inflation data. This is because consumer sentiment is heavily influenced by the sticker shock of everyday items, which takes a long time to fade, even after inflation rates cool.