America’s growing housing affordability crisis could be reversed in a dramatic way if the nation returned to the marriage/partnering (MP) rate that was obtained at the turn of the 21st century, according to a joint analysis by the American Enterprise Institute’s Housing Center (AEI) and the Institute for Family Studies (IFS).

The key to reducing the affordability crisis by 18% overall — with a larger contingent of two-income buyers making affordable more than one million homes that aren’t now — is returning the nation’s MP rate to the 66% per capita level it was in the year 2000, compared to the present rate of 60.6%, according to the analysis.

Distributed over the same 24-year stretch from 2000 to 2024 during which the MP rate dropped, the analysis projects that 1,076,400 homes would become affordable, or approximately 44,800 annually. Returning to the 1980 rate of 74% would put more than two million homes within the affordability range.

Marriage “raises a household’s buying power, while simultaneously reducing the number of households, creating affordability and easing a shortage instead of bidding up prices,” the study observes. The nationwide shortage is currently estimated at more than six million affordable homes.

In addition, the study points out that “marriage has three benefits for the housing market. First, increasing marriages would decrease the number of homes required in the housing market by consolidating two households into one. This acts like a supply-side solution, reducing our national shortage. Second, when two working people get married, their household income rises, meaning they can afford to live in larger and higher-quality homes. Finally, the homes that would be freed up by a marriage recovery are among the most affordable in the country, making marriage both an affordability and supply solution.”

Unfortunately, according to the study authors, discussion among elected officials, housing industry leaders, academic experts, and others has paid too little attention to the influence the marriage rate has on supply and demand in the affordable housing market.

“The ‘white picket fence’ trope — the idea that owning your own home is a crucial piece of the American Dream and the Declaration’s Pursuit of Happiness — is based on fact. Homeownership has always stood in for security and success in the American imagination, and it still does: 94% of Americans say owning a home is part of the American Dream, ranking it behind only financial security and personal freedom among what success means to them,” the study points out.

The decision to marry is the occasion for most young couples that turns the idea of home ownership from a distant hope into a present need.

“Getting married pushes people to actually go looking for a house, not just admire the idea of one. Part of it is that married couples are far more likely to have children, and parenthood is a well-documented trigger for seeking out a single-family home with a yard and a school district … Part of it, too, is the pooling of two incomes and two sets of savings, which puts a down payment within reach in a way it is not for a single earner…”

And there are multiple additional positive impacts of marriage on the housing equation. 

“Married men work more hours, get fired less often, and earn a well-documented ‘marriage premium’ over their single peers, whether from specialization at home, added workplace stability, or some combination of the two. That extra income shows up alongside new habits of saving, budgeting, and delayed gratification — the accumulated sacrifices that make a mortgage, and then years of mortgage payments, sustainable in a way they rarely are for one person alone. In all these ways, ‘putting a ring on it’ makes it easier to put a roof over your head,” the study said.

At present, only 46% of single adults can afford to buy a home, compared to 67% of married couples. On the rental side of the housing market, the figures are 61% and 77% respectively. Couples have more buying power but need only one home, whereas two individuals need two homes but have less available buying power.

Getting back to the 2000 rate would completely eliminate the shortage of affordable housing in 19 of the 50 states, including North Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Kansas, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

South Dakota, at 91%, would be the leading state among those that eliminate less than 100% of the shortage, followed by New Mexico at 85% and Texas at 83%. At the bottom of the ranking are California at 5.6% and New York at 8.2%, reflecting the hyper-expensive prices of housing in those two jurisdictions.

Most approaches to the housing affordability crisis “revolve around ending the ban on starter homes — making it legal to build naturally affordable homes that young and working families can afford to buy and rent. Legalizing starter homes is the single most important action local governments can take to improve housing affordability for young and working families,” the study acknowledged.

Fifty-four percent of the U.S. population currently consists of married couples, followed by individuals living with adult family or relatives at 16%, those living alone at 12%, living with roommates at 6.4%, cohabiting at 6.3%, and single-parent households at 4.8%, according to U.S. Census Bureau data cited by the study.

At its root, the housing affordability crisis is very much a product of government actions at all levels, according to Patrice Onwuka, director of the Independent Women Forum’s Center for Economic Opportunity.

“Red tape carries a high cost. Regulation at all levels of government, from development to building, accounts for an estimated 24% of the total construction costs for single-family homes and 40% for multifamily homes. According to National Association of Home Builders surveys, $93,970 is added to the price of an average new home built for sale, with $41,330 attributable to regulation during the development of the property lot and $52,540 due to regulation imposed during construction of the single-family structure,” Onwuka told a January 2026 hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy and Regulatory Affairs.

“Those costs get passed on to would-be home buyers through ever-rising home prices. Households have also faced the added costs of the previous administration’s green energy agenda. Biden administration rules targeted 15 consumer appliances with new restrictions and mandates, forcing consumers to switch to electric alternatives and new homes financed by FHA loans to meet the new efficiency standards. Restricting consumer choice drives up prices, adding up to $31,000 to the price of a new home,” she emphasized.