Contrary to what biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted, India now produces 10 times more wheat today than it did in 1965 when its population was 65 percent smaller

See India Sets New Wheat Production Record by Gale Pooley.

"This article originally appeared in Gale Pooley’s Gale Winds Substack.

Before agronomist Norman Borlaug showed up in the 1960s, India was only producing 10 million tons of wheat a year. In 2023, it expects to produce 112 million tons. Thanks to Borlaug and other scientists and innovators, wheat production has increased by 1,020 percent since 1965. From 1965 to 2022, India’s population increased by 180 percent, from 500 million to 1.45 billion.  Every 1 percent increase in population corresponded to a 5.66 percent increase in wheat production—the opposite of what Paul Ehrlich predicted.

While Ehrlich wanted to sterilize Indians in order to control population growth, Borlaug taught them how to feed themselves and export their surplus production. The lesson is to not trust someone who is frightened of the future because of their hypothetical model and who has the totalitarian power to deprive people of their human rights and dignity.

In 1970 Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His discoveries are estimated to have saved a billion people from malnutrition and starvation.

His favorite saying was “No time to relax.”

If people are free to innovate and enjoy the benefits of their labor, they will lift themselves and everyone else out of poverty.

Who is our next Norman Borlaug? Maybe someone born in India who now has the food and time to discover valuable new knowledge.

You can learn more about these economic facts and ideas in our new book, Superabundance, available at Amazon. Jordan Peterson calls it a “profoundly optimistic book.”

Professor Gale L. Pooley teaches economics at Brigham Young University, Hawaii. He is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and a board member of HumanProgress.org"

The Abundance Agenda: A Radical Response to Populist Protectionism

Abundance Will Come From a True Trade Openness Agenda

By Veronique de Rugy and Christine McDaniel. Excerpt:

"The case for unilateral trade openness is simple: Policies that restrict imports such as tariffs are taxes that intentionally raise Americans’ cost of living. Indeed, their sole purpose is to increase the prices, for example, of European goods to make these so unappealing that American consumers will instead buy more domestically made goods. When the U.S. government imposes tariffs, any tariffs, American consumers are left with fewer choices and higher prices. The same is true of foreign tariffs. European tariffs on U.S. exports are a tax on European consumers who would have preferred those products if not for their government’s intervention.

Some foreign producers of the goods could, in theory, shoulder the full cost of the tariffs if they simply accepted reduced profit margins. Multiple economic studies demonstrate, however, that importers pass a large portion of the costs of tariffs onto customers – manufacturers and households in the tariff-imposing country – by raising their prices. This result isn’t surprising because the unspoken purpose of protectionist measures like tariffs is to raise the relative prices of imports. The more that tariffs are absorbed in the form of lower profits by foreign producers, the less protection they give to American producers. As such, we Americans are better off with no tariffs on EU goods, regardless of the EU tariff policy.

What about American exporters subjected to European tariffs? They will be fine under unilateral trade openness. First, talking about importers and exporters as if they have separate interests is mistaken. Many importers are themselves domestic producers trying to secure their preferred inputs at the lowest cost for producing American exports. Second, contrary to the belief that seems to underpin our reciprocal trading system, trade’s ultimate benefits are the goods and inputs that we import at prices lower than would be our costs of producing these at home. Let us repeat that: The true value of trade comes from imports, not exports. Exports are costs, although costs worth incurring insofar as they are a means of obtaining imports of even greater value.

Here’s how it works. The more a country imports, the more money its people spend (and send) abroad. With more of its money abroad, foreigners have more money with which to buy the home country’s exports. This explains why, when our imports grow – as they did after NAFTA went into effect in 1994 – so do our exports. That export growth may not be as much as the growth in imports because foreigners can also invest their dollars in the U.S. In short, increased imports tend to go hand in hand with increased exports and often increased foreign investment in our economy. So whenever we use protectionist measures to decrease our imports, we end up decreasing our exports as well as productive investment from abroad.

This relationship between imports and exports explains why it’s foolish to threaten to raise tariffs for the purpose of increasing exports. It is counterproductive to attempt to reduce the trade deficit with tariffs on imports. (Equally counterproductive are export subsidies, as increased exports enable home-country citizens to buy more imports and hence don’t ultimately reduce the trade deficit.) This fact explains why the Nat Pop trade policy will likely shrink our economy. Sure, with enough tariffs and domestic subsidies we could reduce imports from, say, China. But in the process, we will shrink our economy and reduce our exports. Further, we will not only raise the cost of goods consumed by Americans, but also – because about half of Americans’ imports are used for production of goods domestically – raise the costs of producing things in America.

Even now, as the Biden administration pushes for transformative green reforms, the White House is undermining its own efforts by maintaining bogus security-based tariffs on foreign steel and duties on Canadian lumber, both needed for new infrastructure and denser, more affordable urban housing. Tariffs on solar panels are suppressing growth of renewable energy, while the Jones Act’s autarky in domestic shipping makes offshore wind energy harder to build and pushes mountains of cargo into vastly more carbon-intensive trucking. New calls for additional tariffs to target steel used in the electrical grid would make it even more expensive to bring new power sources online to charge electric cars and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Free Trade Is Easier to Implement Too

Protectionists aren’t the only group that misunderstands or misstates the fundamental case for unfettered trade. Even free marketeers have been mostly content to mumble about the necessity of trade openness as a means to increase our exports while they should have been singing its praises from the rooftops. This misguided justification for more trade openness – best described as pro-export mercantilism – is currently baked into our global trading system, our institutions, and even how pro-trade politicians communicate the importance of trade and trade agreements. Instead of killing protectionism, we have allowed it to parasitically feed on the productive economy.

This pro-export mercantilism has been the guiding mindset of trade negotiators, who for generations have pursued agreements that accept the protectionist premise that imports are a cost and exports the reward. For example, the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration declares that its first goal in trade agreements is “to reduce barriers to U.S. exports.” Unfortunately, this upside-down mindset has diverted much of our energy toward convincing other governments to lower their tariffs, when all we had to do to reap the benefits of trade abundance was to convince our own legislators to lower our tariffs.

Unilateral trade openness is straightforward to implement compared to the years or decades of negotiations to ink a free trade agreement. (And sometimes, as with the World Trade Organization’s failed Doha Round of negotiations, those years or decades end with nothing to show at all.) The home government can unilaterally eliminate import restrictions like tariffs, quotas or harmful subsidies. It need not wait for foreign counterparts to drop trade barriers. American trade negotiators flinch at the thought of unilateral trade liberalization because what leverage would they have if the U.S. did that? But just ask New Zealand or Singapore, both of which have gone ahead with unilateral trade openness. Both, too, are in more trade agreements than the U.S., and benefit from more market access around the world for their exports and imports.

That isn’t to say that the U.S. shouldn’t put any constraints on which foreign goods flow across its borders, but it should do so in the least restrictive way possible. For instance, most European countries do not allow the import of U.S. chicken treated with chlorine. Whatever one thinks of that processing method, the European rule applied to U.S. chicken should be applied equally to all European and other imported chicken.

Unilateral trade openness also allows for exceptions for national defense, even though doing so has a real economic cost. It is why we don’t see free trade in plutonium or telecommunication devices with companies that are heavily intertwined with authoritarian regimes – because it would create excessively high national security risks.

But beware: Not every call to protect a particular domestic industry in the name of national security improves the government’s ability to defend America. In fact, most such claims are illegitimate, which is why we must be careful each time the argument is raised. While many thought the WTO obligations would help countries curb their enthusiasm for claiming national security for protectionism, a recent WTO case involving tariffs on steel and aluminum suggests otherwise. (Listen to this helpful discussion on the topic by Chad Bown, Jennifer Hillman and Mona Paulsen to understand why.)

What about special treatment for domestically produced goods or domestically assembled goods, you ask? Well, it might make you feel better to call it industrial policy, since that is all the rage these days, but it is still just protectionism. These types of policies force a rearrangement of labor and capital and other economic resources, and end up shrinking the size of the American economy and ultimately reducing U.S. households’ real incomes.

Here are just a few recent policies that are veiled protectionism:

• Tax credits for electric vehicles that are assembled in North America.
• Tax credits for electric vehicles that use batteries and critical minerals from battery makers that locate facilities in the U.S.
• Reinstating import taxes on infant formula.
• Tariffs on imported steel and aluminum in the name of national security.
• Recent calls to add electrical steel to national security tariffs.

A Moral Imperative

Being economists, the two of us are accustomed to explaining that trade is a source of many economic opportunities, and that this fact is true regardless of the trade policies followed by other countries. But there is also a strong ethical case for unilateral free trade. In a powerful 2001 piece that has withstood the test of time, trade economist Dan Griswold argues that Western moral thought provides a solid foundation to pursue economic openness, which in turns promotes such cherished outcomes as political freedom, peace, democracy and hope for the poor.

Here are some of these arguments:

1. A policy of unilateral free trade is the only one that fully respects our right and our freedom to decide with whom we conduct peaceful commerce.
2. A policy of free trade is nondiscriminatory. With rare exceptions, such as legitimate national security or public health priorities, the government shouldn’t interfere with our decisions to buy goods and services from foreign merchants, any more than it interferes with our decisions to buy goods and services from merchants in other states.
3. Free trade promotes equality because tariffs take a larger share of the incomes of the poor than of the rich. As Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome explains, trade is an effective way to lift people out of poverty.
4. Free trade plays no favorites. Any protectionist policy short of absolute autarky necessarily favors some citizens over others. Consumers who purchase lower-tariffed imports benefit at the expense of consumers who purchase higher-tariffed imports, while some domestic producers get more protection than others.
5. Trade is not a panacea for the world’s problems. Trade won’t necessarily instigate a turnaround in authoritarian regimes. Nevertheless, countries that trade more with each other are less prone to engage in armed conflict and more prone to form stronger alliances. So, while trade does not guarantee democracy or peace, it is a much better bet than protectionism.

Nationalism and populism have enjoyed a bit of a comeback in the U.S. Meanwhile, geopolitics is seeping into trade policy. These trends could reverse decades of international trade and investment openness that have brought opportunity and progress across America.

Trade openness is more likely to bring about abundance and improvements in our well-being than protectionism. Trade openness says “no” to special interests and “yes” to opportunity.

The competitive instinct is innate in humans, but it needs a competitive landscape to flourish. The Nat Pop agenda threatens the competitive landscape we need. Further, lawmakers must find a way to distinguish between legitimate national security concerns and veiled calls for protectionism. Samuel Gregg gives helpful guidance in The Next American Economy, noting that trade competition is one thing, while theft is another.

No U.S. company should trade or do business with foreign entities that directly bolster the military or security forces of a nation deemed hostile to the U.S. Beyond that, however, openness to trade is simply American and it is patriotic."

Economists Are Still Right About Airline Deregulation!

By Cliff Winston of the Brookings Institution.

"Airplanes are crowded and uncomfortable, and what used to be viewed as routine amenities like blankets, snacks, checked baggage service — and even preassigned seats — are now seen as paid extras. What outrage will be next? 

How about Southwest Airlines’ recent miserable performance in winter weather, cancelling some 17,000 flights after its antiquated technology tanked? Or the Federal Aviation Administration’s follow-on fiasco, grounding all U.S. flights for hours thanks to a computer safety glitch? 

The New York Times thought enough of those maddening events to publish not one but two essays suggesting that the chickens have finally come home to roost from America’s grand experiment with airline deregulation and urging a return to kinder, gentler air travel under the guiding hand of Washington. If you’re convinced the Times is right — if you see regulation as the antidote for cramped seats, lost luggage, maddening delays on the tarmac and, if you’re lucky, Cinnabons for breakfast, lunch and dinner — give me a few minutes to dissuade you. 

Start with Elizabeth Spiers, the founding editor of Gawker, who wrote in the Times that the benefits of airline deregulation have been undermined by the drip, drip, drip of profit-maximizing policies that reserve amenities for full-fare business travelers and write off the rest of us as Spam in a can. For his part, William McGee of the American Economic Liberties Project is eager to catalyze a national conversation about regulating the airline industry as part of a broader conversation about taming the excesses of capitalism. 

Economists, especially those who have long been immersed in debates about the deregulation of trucks, intercity buses and railroads, as well as airlines, are inclined to go back to the numbers. Think flying is too expensive? Turns out that inflation-adjusted airfares were 60 percent lower in 2020 than in 1980. Indeed, flying is no longer a luxury. It’s cheap enough to allow most Americans to fly — by 2020, 87 percent of the U.S. population had taken a commercial airline trip. And low fares have cost us nothing in terms of safety: no major airline has been involved in an accident in the United States since 2009. 
Such evidence is likely to be lost in the cacophony of complaints. As in, there is little choice of carriers, so airlines can charge sky high fares … airline seats are torture, and the cabins are noisy and claustrophobic … employees are grumpy and never tell it straight. But is there a good reason to believe that regulation would reduce the frustration of flying without raising its cost and creating other frustrations?  

Suppose regulators appeased those who claim that flying costs too much by putting a cap on air fares. The airline industry has periods of fat profits, but those profits are notoriously fickle. And if they’re expected to stay in business in down times, airlines can’t be expected to sacrifice revenue generated when demand is high without trying to make it up elsewhere.
Note, too, that their options to make up for lost revenue would create other problems. 

Paying employees less would mean more of that much-evident grumpiness, not to mention employee turnover and less competence. Raising the price of checked luggage would turn cabins into hand-to-hand combat zones for overhead space. Jamming more passengers into cabins would require narrower seats with (even) less legroom and longer boarding times.
What about service reliability? Suppose policymakers force an airline that cancels a flight to immediately provide a cash reimbursement to all affected passengers – as the European Union requires in many circumstances. All airlines, not just Southwest, scratch thousands of flights every year, sometimes due to human or equipment error — but mostly because of bad weather. If airlines are forced to incur all the financial risks of delayed flights, something else must give — back to amenities and/or fares. 

I can continue the exercise of proposing a regulation intended to make flying a more felicitous experience — and then making the obvious point that there’s no free lunch here. Indeed, if you look closely, you’ll notice that air carriers are constantly experimenting with amenities, separating charges and rebundling them, offering fare “sales” in lean times, adding intermediate seating classes to catch those willing to pay a bit more for a bit more. And often, they’ve decided that what most passengers value most is low fares. 

What, then, could be done to improve air travel without robbing Peter to pay Paul? Consider policies that would increase airline competition. One sure bet would be to allow foreign airlines to serve domestic routes. The entry of foreign carriers would regenerate the sort of competition enjoyed in the early days of deregulation, when the big established carriers had to look over their metaphorical shoulders to see who was chasing them. Imagine flying Ryanair or easyJet to Las Vegas — think lower fares, greater flight frequency, more experimentation with (and without) amenities. 

U.S. policymakers should insist, of course, on the quid pro quo, giving American carriers access to other countries’ domestic markets. One bonus: seamless international travel on a single carrier from, say, Des Moines to Vienna, reducing connections and waiting time when connections were necessary.; 

Another constructive policy would be to privatize airports and let them compete for passengers and airlines. It does not make sense for travelers in sprawling metros like Atlanta, Las Vegas and Denver to be served by a single monopoly airport, especially in cases where the single airport serves to funnel much of the traffic to an airline that is a legacy, not a low-cost carrier.
• • •
The media and politicians take an active interest in the airline industry because they are frequent fliers and have the points to prove it. They see the government involved in ensuring safety, providing infrastructure and raising antitrust concerns, and then leap to the conclusion that government also should be involved in fares and amenities (which excite them most) when those are best left to markets."

Shift to Mined vs. Man-Made Graphite Raises Shortage Risk for EVs

Natural graphite is greener than synthetic, leading auto makers to turn to mines for the mineral

By Scott Patterson and Amrith Ramkumar of The WSJ. Excerpts:

"Mining companies are ramping up supplies of critical minerals for rechargeable batteries such as lithium, cobalt and nickel. Graphite, a key battery component, has largely been overlooked. 

That is about to change. Some of the world’s biggest auto and battery makers and the U.S. government are racing to secure graphite supplies amid looming signs of shortages of the mineral suitable for batteries. So far graphite prices haven’t reflected the tight supply. 

“Graphite always seems to be the forgotten battery material, yet it’s in half the battery,” said Brent Nykoliation, executive vice president of NextSource Materials Inc., which is developing a graphite project in Madagascar. “It’s the largest raw material in the battery.”

Graphite is unusual among materials seen as crucial for the energy transition because it can be man-made as well as mined. Most lithium-ion batteries use synthetic graphite, which is produced from a petroleum byproduct, mostly in China.

But using an energy-intensive, high-emissions process to produce graphite defeats the purpose of the batteries that power EVs and store renewable energy. The production of synthetic graphite can be four times more carbon intensive than that of natural graphite, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which tracks the battery supply chain. 

As battery and auto makers look to reduce carbon emissions in their supply chains, more are looking to natural graphite, analysts say. The problem: The increase in demand is running headlong into a supply shortage. By 2030, natural graphite is projected to have among the largest supply shortfalls of battery materials, with demand outstripping expected supplies by about 1.2 million metric tons, according to Benchmark."

"Turning to supplies in unstable parts of the world has its own issues. Some analysts have raised concerns that the mine in Mozambique is near a conflict area where attacks by Islamic rebels have fueled a humanitarian crisis."

Are Gas Stoves Dangerous to Your Health? Here’s What Science Says

Debate over idea of banning gas stoves reignites questions about health risks

By Sumathi Reddy of The WSJ. Excerpts:

"Exposure to nitrogen dioxide won’t cause asthma in everyone, but in certain people who are more vulnerable to developing it, chronic inflammation and stress in the airway might be one trigger, says Dr. Nordgaard.

The level of risk in a home depends on a number of factors, says Dr. Jack, including the ventilation in the kitchen, how old and well-maintained the stove is and how you’re using it.

“For somebody cooking on a late model, well-maintained stove with a good hood and good ventilation, concentrations [of natural gas] are going to be pretty low and the risk is pretty low,” says Dr. Jack.

Researchers say other appliances that use natural gas, such as furnaces and boilers, are less of a concern when it comes to nitrogen dioxide because they are required to vent directly outdoors.

What About When the Stove Is Off?

Stoves can emit gas even when you’re not using them, but the gas emitted is largely methane, says Rob Jackson, an environmental scientist and professor at Stanford University. Methane is a greenhouse gas linked to global warming, but the levels emitted from a stove aren’t considered harmful to human health, he says.

“The methane emissions are not a health issue indoors at the concentrations we find,” says Dr. Jackson. He was senior author on a 2022 study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, which found that three-quarters of the methane emitted from gas stoves takes place when they are turned off."

The Vicious Circle of Covid Boondoggles and Bad Data

Medicare bonuses and FEMA funeral benefits create incentives to overstate the disease’s toll

By Leslie Bienen and Margery Smelkinson. Dr. Bienen is a veterinarian who conducts research on zoonotic diseases and public-health policy. Ms. Smelkinson is an infectious-disease scientist whose research has focused on influenza and SARS-CoV-2. Excerpts:

"Public-health experts are increasingly acknowledging what has long been obvious: America is overcounting hospitalizations and deaths from Covid-19. Hospital patients are routinely tested for Covid on admission, then counted as “Covid hospitalizations” even if they’re asymptomatic. When patients die, Leana Wen notes in a Washington Post column, Covid is often listed on their death certificates even if it played no part in killing them. Government programs create incentives to overestimate Covid’s toll"

"The UC San Francisco hospital system uses remdesivir, a Covid-19 antiviral, as a similar proxy. That yields higher numbers, since remdesivir is given to patients with milder symptoms. UCSF doesn’t report detailed data publicly, but hospitalizations “from” Covid are typically less than half of Covid-positive patients."

"Many states report a “Covid death” anytime the decedent had a positive PCR test in the month or two before dying. The National Center for Health Statistics, a CDC subdivision, uses death certificates, which are more reliable. But death certificates have problems of their own, in part because government policies create incentives to overcount. 

Under the federal public-health emergency, which begins its fourth year on Friday, hospitals get a 20% bonus for treating Medicare patients diagnosed with Covid-19."

"Another incentive to overcount comes from the American Rescue Plan of 2021, which authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay Covid-19 death benefits for funeral services, cremation, caskets, travel and a host of other expenses. The benefit is worth as much as $9,000 a person or $35,000 a family if multiple members die."

"Several physicians told us they are concerned that hospitals are being pressured by families to list Covid-19 on the death certificate."

The Campaign to Ban Gas Stoves

Biden and the media deny it exists, but the effort is calculated and well-funded

By Kimberley A. Strassel of Thge WSJ. Excerpts: 

"One is the Climate Imperative Foundation, which became an overnight green powerhouse and reported more receipts in 2021 than the League of Conservation Voters or the Sierra Club. A board member and funder is Kleiner Perkins billionaire John Doerr, whose climate action plan calls for getting rid of gas cooking. CIF’s executive director, Bruce Nilles, has made the end of gas stoves an imperative, writing in 2019: “Your gas stove has to go.” CIF has granted money to the Rocky Mountain Institute, which has long advocated “retrofitting” existing homes to be “all electric.”"

"Then there’s Rewiring America, “the leading electrification nonprofit, focused on electrifying our homes, businesses and communities.” And New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, which last year called on the CPSC to enact a gas-stove ban."

"several years ago this cabal hit on the idea of contradicting decades of science and ginning up hokey studies claiming gas stoves present a “health risk.”"

"One frequently cited study from the Rocky Mountain Institute—claiming to find a link between gas stoves and childhood asthma—was co-authored by two RMI staffers, neither of whom has a science degree. Another favorite study by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity claims gas stoves cause “dangerous levels of indoor air pollution.” It was written by two lawyers, and it cites . . . the RMI study."

"The November edition of the “independent” magazine Consumer Reports was devoted to the “Hidden Health Hazards in Your Home” and explained that its research found an “alarming concern” with levels of nitrogen dioxide from gas stoves. (It also featured a four-page tribute to induction cooktops, the left’s expensive alternative to gas.) Tucked at the end of the article online was an editor’s note: “This project was funded in part with a grant from the Climate Imperative Foundation.” CIF’s 2021 tax filings show a $375,000 donation to Consumer Reports specifically for research on gas stoves."

"The White House last month held an “electrification summit,” which featured a panel on getting gas out of homes. Nearly every guest (including a representative from Rewiring America) stated the “health” harm of gas stoves as accepted fact, and Trisha Miller of the White House’s Climate Policy Office described the need to “eliminate emissions” by getting rid of all “combustion appliances” in houses (including your washer, dryer and furnace). The electrification agenda is being carried out through the Department of Energy’s Better Climate Challenge, which lists Rewiring America and RMI as “allies.”"

"Around the time of the Consumer Reports story—and in the runup to the Electrification Summit—Mr. Trumka circulated a memo titled “NPR Proposing Ban on Gas Stoves (Indoor Air Quality).” (NPR is an acronym for notice of proposed rulemaking.) The Cruz letter says the memo cites the Consumer Reports and NYU studies among reasons Mr. Trumka concludes there is “sufficient information” now to forbid Americans from purchasing new gas stoves."

Evidence Calls “Housing First” Homelessness Strategy into Question

By Vanessa Brown Calder and Jordan Gygi of Cato. Excerpt: 

"Has Housing First succeeded in its aims? The state of Utah claimed that it reduced chronic homelessness by 91% from 2005–2015, and this initially prompted commentators and policy analysts to promote Utah’s Housing First policies as the gold standard. Unfortunately, the largest decline in homelessness during this period occurred between 2009 and 2010, when Utah changed its definition of chronic homelessness and stopped counting people in transitional housing as chronically homeless. As a result, methodological differences were likely at play in the cited decline.[4]

Perhaps more significantly, since 2017, chronic homelessness grew rapidly both in the state generally and in Salt Lake County specifically (Figures 1 and 2). In 2010, the state counted 406 chronically homeless individuals and by 2017 this number had fallen to 185 (a 54% decrease). However, from 2017 to 2022, the number of chronically homeless reached 792, a 95% increase from 2010 and 328% increase from 2017.[5]

Salt Lake County, where most of the state’s homeless population resides, follows a similar pattern (Figure 2). In Salt Lake County, chronic homelessness fell around 29% between 2010 and 2017, but it rose sharply (297%) between 2017 and 2022.

Utah’s Housing First initiatives specifically targets the chronically homeless, a group that constitutes a subset of the broader homeless population. However, it is worth considering changes in the broader (overall) homeless population, as well. Figures 3 and 4 show that the number of people experiencing homelessness on a given night did not change much between 2005 and 2022; although the number of homeless individuals trended down after 2012, homeless counts later returned to former levels both statewide and in Salt Lake County.

What is to blame for Utah’s disappointing results? Utah’s Office of the Legislative Auditor General conducted an audit of Utah’s homelessness response in 2021 and identified two reasons for Utah’s recent struggles that are inherent to the Housing First approach. The first issue is that the cost of permanent housing is high, with an estimated $250,000–$275,000 required per unit built. After surveying those working in homeless services, Utah’s Office of the Legislative Auditor estimates that Utah is short 1,200 units to meet current demand. Thus, it would cost between $300 million and $330 million to catch up with current demand.

To put this number in perspective, Governor Spencer Cox’s proposed FY 2024 budget, which has been called “Utah’s highest budget ever,” recommends $20 million in state funding for “deeply affordable housing,” at least some of which would benefit the homeless population.[6] This is in line with recent years’ spending, where the state allocated between $3 and $23 million annually for homelessness.

State officials agree that the high cost of permanent housing is making Housing First more difficult to sustain. Joseph Jensen, who oversees data collection and management at the Utah Office of Homeless Services, recently stated that “we do feel like [the increase in homelessness is] being driven, at least in part, by the tightening housing market, very low vacancy rates, housing prices, (and) rental prices have increased dramatically over the last year, really over the last several years.” Unfortunately, Housing First initiatives become more expensive when housing is more expensive, and housing in Utah costs roughly twice as much on average today as in 2015.

A second issue with Housing First is that its focus on permanently placing homeless residents in housing units means that there are rarely vacancies in the Housing First housing stock. According to the 2021 audit, between 92 and 95 percent of homeless residents placed in permanent housing between fiscal years 2017 and 2020 remained in permanent housing during the reporting period. Because Housing First encourages the formerly homeless to remain in state‐​funded housing long term, this creates added pressure on the program’s financials. Consequently, additional permanent housing units must be continually built or acquired by the state.

For these and other reasons, Utah’s experience almost twenty years out from program adoption casts doubt on the idea that the Housing First philosophy will deliver on its promises. Although Housing First was once hailed as a solution to homelessness, Utah’s experience suggests that there still are not easy answers. In fact, the state is continuing to experiment with ways to get the homeless off of the streets, including modifying the Housing First approach to looking at ways to move homeless out of tents and into semi‐​permanent tiny houses. The outcomes in California, another Housing First state, also look bleak.

Given the results so far, it would be prudent for the Biden administration to allow local governments to continue experimenting with strategies to reduce homelessness, rather than pushing Housing First initiatives nationwide. A more cautious approach ensures that states and municipalities avoid costly pitfalls and put resources towards successful initiatives rather than faltering ones.

---

[1] Some experts believe that getting individuals with a substance use disorder into stable, permanent housing can help to facilitate recovery. However, just as not all those with substance abuse disorders are chronically homeless, not all chronically homeless individuals have substance abuse disorders. Variation in the population suggests that a one‐​size‐​fits‐​all approach is not adequate.

[2] A person is considered chronically homeless if they are an “unaccompanied homeless adult individual (persons 18 years or older) with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more OR has had at least four (4) separate occasions of homelessness in the past three (3) years.”

[3] According to HUD estimates.

[4] Kevin Corinth, a former scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, describes some of Utah’s earlier measurement errors here. In addition to definitional issues pertaining to chronic homelessness, Kevin also noted methodological inconsistencies pertaining to the annualizing of point‐​in‐​time estimates. After reaching out to state officials to clarify without success, the authors of this blog decided to use (non‐​annualized) point‐​in‐​time counts for purposes of this analysis.

[5] We use 2010 as the beginning of the current analysis because this is the year in which Utah changed their definition of chronic homelessness.

[6] In addition, the governor’s budget recommends $80 million in one‐​time federal American Rescue Plan (ARPA) funding for deeply affordable housing."