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: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: people involved in federally assisted housing projects
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill affects housing contractors and workers involved in federally assisted housing projects as it changes wage determinations.
- There are numerous federally assisted housing projects across the United States, impacting those involved in construction of these projects.
- The Department of Labor's change in process will affect all future residential construction projects receiving federal assistance.
Reasoning
- The target population consists of individuals directly involved in federally assisted housing projects. This includes construction workers, contractors, project managers, and potentially local residents who might be employed in such projects.
- The budget for the policy suggests it could fund the review and implementation processes affecting numerous small to medium-sized housing projects across the nation - potentially impacting approximately 500,000 people involved in these projects.
- Due to varying local economic conditions and the nature of the construction industry, the level of impact may differ significantly among individuals, reflecting in their self-reported wellbeing scores.
- Some individuals will experience a positive impact due to potentially improved wage rates, while others, particularly those not directly involved or in roles less affected by wage changes, may not notice a significant difference.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy ensures a better wage, it would be really helpful. More money means better security for my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Project Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important to ensure fair wages for the workers. This policy seems like a step in the right direction.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Contractor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy is implemented well, it could streamline project budgets and timelines. But it needs careful monitoring.
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 |
Community Organizer (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could support better outcomes in affordable housing projects by ensuring workers are fairly compensated.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Detroit, MI)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems beneficial but doesn't affect me directly as I'm retired now. It's good for the younger workforce.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Architect (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fair wages can improve project sustainability but might increase initial costs. A solution that balances both would be ideal.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Apprentice Carpenter (Memphis, TN)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Looking forward to learning more, and any increase in pay would help with my student loans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Electrician (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our union supports measures that improve worker wages. This policy aligns with those goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Public Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s a necessary step, but the real impact will depend on how it's implemented and monitored. Accountability is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Construction Company Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better wages might hike project costs, but it could also improve worker satisfaction and reduce turnover.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $125000000)
Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 10: $145000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $170000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $230000000)
Key Considerations
- By broadening the applicability of the single-family residential wage rate, this could raise construction costs.
- The Department of Labor's enhanced review process could improve the accuracy of wage determinations.
- Impacted stakeholders include contractors, construction workers, and residents of federally assisted housing projects.