Why do voters care most about the prices politicians can’t change?

Every day, there’s a new story about the political importance of gas prices. Apparently, voters jump to blame their leaders (especially the President) whenever they’re facing high prices at the pump.

Of course, this is complete nonsense. There is virtually nothing that American politicians can do to change the price of oil. Mitt Romney talks about the need to keep “supply” in line with demand, but he neglects to mention that the relevant quantities are world supply and world demand, and that the US has nowhere near enough oil to make a dent in world supply. Although producing more oil would be financially beneficial for the US, this is only for the very simple reason that selling oil earns money, not the tiny impact that higher US production would have on prices faced by consumers. (Norway has probably managed to figure this one out by now.)

At the same time, however, there is an even more important price that politicians around the country can change: the price of housing. Especially in major cities like New York, San Francisco, Washington and (gah!) Boston, a tangle of zoning and building restrictions makes housing far more expensive than the direct costs of supplying it would suggest. Changes in population from state to state are dominated by a general trend of moving to where housing is cheaper. The costs of shelter account for more than 20% of consumer expenditures. Clearly this a very, very important issue for consumers’ well-being—yet we don’t see a popular response that comes close to matching the ferocity of the reaction to gas prices.

To be fair, there is some response, and it usually takes the form of misguided measures like rent control or top-down efforts to provide “affordable housing”. But I think it’s fair to say that housing is, most of the time, much less salient as a political issue than energy.

Why is this? The obvious explanation is that richer and older people—the ones who vote—are disproportionately more likely to be homeowners. According to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, 89% of the top quintile are homeowners, compared to 40% of the bottom quintile. If we look at the data by age, roughly 80% of households led by people 55 and older own their own home, versus 14% for households led by someone under 25. Homeowners, of course, generally benefit from an increase in housing costs: they own an asset whose price reflects both housing costs today (which they have to pay whether or not they own a home) and housing costs in the future. Since most homeowners are going to die long before their houses or land become uninhabitable, an increase in those future housing costs leads to a direct increase in their real wealth. (Unless, of course, they care about their great-grandchildren’s wealth just as much as their own.)

Perversely, their incentive is to choke off the housing supply as much as possible, not look into ways to create affordable housing. And now, in a world where higher house prices are (mistakenly or not) viewed as essential to economic recovery, this manipulation even acquires an air of legitimacy.

With energy prices, on the other hand, there’s an element of politicians creating their own reality. Since energy encounters price spikes so frequently, it’s an obvious target for popular anger, and thus an easy target for political pandering. Even if there’s absolutely nothing they can do on the issue, politicians are forced to say something about it. And since politicians talk about energy prices so much—and those prices become perceived as a legitimate topic of political debate—voters assume that government must be able to have some impact.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the US—save for Alaskans and investors piling into Exxon Mobil stock—benefits from high energy prices. It’s hard to imagine anything less politically risky than complaining about the price of gas. And so we’re left with a bizarre distribution of political attention: massive coverage of a less important price that we can’t change, but relatively minor interest in a more important price that we can.


Filed under policy

10 responses to “Why do voters care most about the prices politicians can’t change?

  1. bottomofthe9th

    I think you’re probably overstating the extent to which high oil (and probably more important, natural gas) prices are bad for Americans. It’s not just Alaska anymore–the economies of Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, etc. have grown faster than those in surrounding states, with similar demographics, without major resource extraction industries.

    Certainly, as you say, this drilling doesn’t change global prices, but the economic value of US oil and gas production is actually pretty large, and increasingly, not concentrated in just Alaska and Texas.

  2. That’s a fair point. Perhaps these voters are still friendly to complaints about high gas prices because in practice, the political “solution” tends to involve large unnecessary subsidies for domestic extraction.

  3. Pingback: Secondary Sources: Prices Politicians Can’t Change, Investment, Greece - Real Time Economics - WSJ

  4. Most politicians could likely also lower the cost of seeing a Doctor but even in this age of health care reform being a big news item the issue of making it easier to get to be a doctor hardly comes up.

  5. Gary

    Want to inflate home prices and drive poor and minority residents from your city to make it nice, rich, and white? Progressive Smart Growth policies are your ticket. Why do Progressives hate poor people?

  6. Pingback: Comparing Housing with Oil | Reno Rents

  7. It seems political money is always more effectively spent on keeping things the same as opposed to negotiating improvements. At this time, the Public has the opportunity to take the price of housing into its own collective hands by increasing its rate of strategic default.

  8. Pingback: Our Story so far… « The Traders Crucible

  9. Oliver

    It’s hard to imagine anything less politically risky than complaining about the price of gas.

    Since when was politics about solving problems? Seems the opportunity to use a commodity that directly affects everyone’s mobility, which comes mostly from places we love to hate and lobbying against which comes with no danger of upsetting important constituencies is political gold in the game of channelling voter anger to force opponents to accept otherwise unsavoury ends such as cutting back on social spending.

  10. Pingback: Insurance against oil shocks: the best idea Bill Frist ever had | Matt Rognlie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s