Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8235

Bill Overview

Title: Housing Supply Expansion Act

Description: This bill modifies the federal prevailing wage rates that apply to federally assisted housing and requires the Department of Labor to review and revise its process for determining prevailing wage rates. Specifically, the bill applies the prevailing wage rate for residential construction to all housing projects that receive assistance under specified federal statutes. (Under current law, the residential construction prevailing wage rate applies to the construction, alteration, or repair of single-family homes or apartment buildings up to four floors in height.)

Sponsors: Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals relying on federally assisted housing projects that will be affected by wage rate changes

Estimated Size: 30000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Construction Worker (New York, NY)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am hopeful that increased wages will improve my living standard.
  • Worried about potential job reductions due to increased project costs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Federal Housing Project Manager (Houston, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There will be management challenges, but with higher wages, projects can retain skilled workers.
  • Balancing budget constraints with quality labor is a repeating issue.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Policy Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 27 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is a step forward in increasing workers' rights and fair pay.
  • Potential for increased housing costs is concerning.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Retired (Detroit, MI)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about whether new housing will remain affordable.
  • Higher construction costs might slow the building of needed housing options.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Nonprofit Director (Miami, FL)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this are crucial for fair wages, but we must also ensure housing remains accessible to all income levels.
  • Collaboration with other organizations will be key to facing challenges from policy changes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 8

Civil Engineer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A new prevailing wage rate will likely increase overall project costs.
  • It might lead to innovative solutions to manage expenses effectively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 10 9

Construction Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • New wage requirements could increase operational challenges.
  • Potentially positive for retaining skilled labor, but financial pressures might reduce project feasibility.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 8

Real Estate Developer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The impact on cost structures is significant, aligning with sustainable development needs is crucial.
  • Adjusting to wage changes can lead to either delaying projects or looking into alternative materials and technologies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 10 9

Economist (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy has complex economic implications, potentially affecting housing supply.
  • Evaluating long-term impacts on affordability is crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 9 8

Housing Activist (Boston, MA)

Age: 58 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is an opportunity to strengthen worker rights in housing sectors.
  • Ensuring housing affordability alongside wage increases is a balancing act.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $90000000)

Year 2: $82000000 (Low: $72000000, High: $92000000)

Year 3: $84000000 (Low: $74000000, High: $94000000)

Year 5: $90000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $100000000)

Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $110000000)

Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $170000000)

Key Considerations