DDonald Trump and JD Vance I have a story to sell you: In the midst of a housing rush in the United States, the real problem is the presence of immigrants.

Americans “cannot ignore the impact that the influx of 21 million illegal aliens has had on rising housing costs.” Trump argued at the Economic Club of New York luncheon in September. Vance has made this argument even more fervently – on X, in recent interviews and in other venues. During the vice presidential debate, Vance said that “25 million illegal aliens competing with Americans for scarce housing is one of the most significant factors in the nation’s housing prices,” adding: “This is why we have massive increases in housing prices that have occurred alongside a massive increase in illegal alien populations under the leadership of Kamala Harris.

Key elements of this story are false. On the one hand, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States is probably around 11 million, less than half of Vance’s estimate. Additionally, when economist Ernie Tedeschi compared places that have seen increases in the foreign-born population with places that have seen large increases in housing prices for native-born Americans, he couldn’t even find a simple explanation. correlation. But Trump and Vance understand one thing: making the American public believe that immigrants are tapping into limited resources is an effective way to bring out anti-liberal sentiments that could fuel a Republican Party victory.

Alex Trembath and Vijaya Ramachandran: The Malthusians are back

Now let’s get a few things out of the way: housing East rare in large, liberal, productive cities like San Francisco and Boston, which generated good-paying jobs but refused to build enough housing to accommodate all the new workers. And if 25 million people suddenly disappeared from the United States, the pressure on housing prices and rents would ease somewhat, all else being equal.

But all things would not be equal. The kind of events that crush housing demand – like the collapsing birth rate, a massive recession that wipes out many workers’ incomes, a virus that kills a tenth of the population and, yes, the sudden eviction of tens of millions of undocumented immigrants. — tend to have traumatic, economic and other consequences.

What makes arguments like Trump and Vance’s plausible is a general lack of thought. in terms of systems. In reality, immigrants are not just consumers of housing; they are also consumers of various other products, which drives demand for additional jobs for all Americans. And of course, immigrants are not only consumers but also producers who contribute to the construction of housing and contribute to technological innovation.

Yet the fear of fighting over a fixed pool of resources is deeply ingrained in human thinking. In the years 1798 An essay on the principle of populationEnglish economist Thomas Malthus warned that population growth would make everyone poorer: “The food which formerly supported seven millions must now be divided among seven and a half or eight millions.” The poor therefore have to live much worse, and many of them are reduced to serious distress.

The tendency to turn on outsiders in the face of critical shortages is not limited to a basket of deplorables. It’s in each of us. Most people see others as a threat to their resources, whether it’s immigrants coming for your place, yuppies driving up rents, other students taking places at all the good schools, or simply more people on the road, adding to traffic jams.

A recent survey in Massachusetts, which in 2020 supported Joe Biden against Trump two against one– revealed that many people are convinced by Trump/Vance illiberalism. A majority (47.2%) agree with the statement that “migrants gain access to affordable housing that should go to Americans first.” Trump’s rhetorical skills are not what pits a significant number of Massachusetts liberals against their own principles. They are witnessing conditions of scarcity that have been perpetuated for decades by Democratic policymakers in their states.

The mismatch between job and housing creation in wealthier blue states has caused prices to skyrocket, led some people to give up good jobs because housing was too expensive, and put entire communities to the test, pitting neighbors against each other. Unwittingly, liberals have sowed the conditions necessary for illiberal politics to take root in some of the most progressive jurisdictions in the country.

There is basically two ways to address the shortage. There is Malthusian thinking: a fierce defense of the existing resource pool, a policy that demands ever more scapegoats and leaves everyone poorer in the long run. Then there is liberalism, which demands an increasing share of the pie. He argues that we can do more: more housing, more schools, more good jobs, enough for everyone.

This was not always possible. Rarity It was the depressing fact of human existence. Malthus was looking back at a time in human history in which GDP per capita was extremely low and population growth put pressure on existing resources, ultimately leading to population decline. It was a horrible, depressing cycle that pitted family against family, tribe against tribe. There really was not enough food to feed everyone, or enough energy to keep everyone warm. The increase in population meant new mouths to feed; new mouths to feed meant a lower standard of living for everyone.

But the industrial revolution changed everything. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, economies like England’s began to escape the Malthusian trap. The explosion in productivity and economic growth has outpaced the growth in the number of new people. The new people were not just new mouths to feed; they were positive sum additions to society. Even though the population grew exponentially, GDP per capita continued to rise, lifting people out of poverty. People learned to prepare more food with fewer resources (steam engines!), builds structures capable of housing more people with less land (density!), and created technologies that could move many people quickly (horse-drawn omnibuses on rails! cable cars! automobiles!). In a world of rapid economic growth, population growth no longer involves self-sacrifice. Welcoming newcomers with open arms no longer required a level of messianic magnanimity. A policy based on tolerance of others, even celebrate others became possible.

Read: A Brief Economic History of Time

The political logic of tolerance only works when society is out of the trap of scarcity. Anti-immigration hawks insist on focusing on increasing demand for short-term housing due to immigration. They refuse to zoom out and see the big picture: America’s economic growth relies on higher levels of immigration. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, “international migrants have been the sole source of growth in the U.S. working-age population in 2021 and 2022…A shrinking working-age population can easily lead to economic stagnation or even a lowering of standards for a nation. » Fewer people means less innovation, fewer goods and services produced, and higher prices and shortages. However, liberals have forgotten the central importance of the fight against scarcity, and the logic of Malthusian thought has reappeared.

In the richest country in the worldscarcity is now a choice. There are no technological barriers to building enough housing for everyone. We know how to build houses; we’ve done it before. But I fear that liberals have forgotten that their desire for a more welcoming and inclusive world rests on society’s ability to prove that there is enough for everyone. We cannot rely on altruism to redistribute resources to those most in need, to provide more for the poor, to pursue egalitarian principles. We live in a fallen world. People need more than abstract ideals; they need to feel safe.

Listen: Who is to blame for the housing crisis?

Tensions have risen during the pandemic, as rising house prices have shocked expensive suburbs and sleepy towns alike. Graffiti in Boise, Idaho, inviting newcomers to “Go back to Cali” reflected the frustrated mood of longtime residents as deep-pocketed Californians moved in. But scarcity doesn’t just make differences worse; it also creates them. When I report on homelessness, I hear people claim that unhoused residents are bused in from out of state, a myth that researchers have invented. worked tirelessly to demystify— A comprehensive study showed that 90% of homeless people in California lost their last home in the Golden State. Most of the remaining 10 percent were born there or had family or professional ties to the state.

Rhetoric like that of Vance and Trump tends to resonate with people who assume that they are the ones defending themselves against intruders — that the outsider will always be someone else. But history reminds us that stranger has never been a fixed concept. During the Great Depression, California passed an anti-migrant law targeting Oklahomans and other Americans fleeing the Dust Bowl, making it a crime to “knowingly helping a poor person enter the state.” How confident are you that no economic or natural disaster will hit your community? No recession? No hurricanes? No forest fires? If you want to bet on this, lead the way. But the best protection against future disasters is to invest in liberalism and growth today.

However, it is not enough to expect better from people. Liberalism must provide real and tangible proof that it can fight shortage. Otherwise, people will do what is natural. They will do what their ancestors did, and what Trump and Vance are urging them to do: they will turn on the outsiders. And once they no longer have outsiders, they will turn on each other.