Labor Shifts, Housing Shocks: Examining Employment Precarity As a Risk Factor in Housing Instability and Housing Related Hardships

Background and Purpose: In recent decades, cities worldwide have been grappling with an urgent and deepening affordability crisis. Housing costs have skyrocketed, outpacing wage growth, leaving millions of households vulnerable to severe financial strain. The systemic prevalence of high housing cost burdens indicates that residential stability for a substantial proportion of households is in a state of pronounced vulnerability, where even minor financial disturbances can lead to housing instability. Extensive research has shown varying associations between income and housing-related hardship. However, less is known about how precarious employment predicts housing instability and material deprivation. This study delves into how shifts in the labor market—particularly the rise of nonstandard, contingent, and unstable employment—contribute to housing instability and hardships. The research seeks to answer: To what extent is precarious work (e.g., nonstandard schedules, part-time hours, and/or contract employment) associated with heightened risks of housing instability—particularly missed payments, involuntary doubling-up, eviction, and homelessness?

Methods: Drawing on data from 3,171 respondents in wave five of the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study, this analysis operationalizes precarious employment as a multidimensional construct, incorporating five subjective indicators (nonstandard schedules, working ≤37 hours per week, non-traditional hours, irregular shifts, and multiple jobs). The novel composite measure of precarity is subsequently used in logistic regression models to assess its relationship with four distinct manifestations of housing instability: missed rent or mortgage, doubling up, eviction, and homelessness.

Results: Findings indicate that, after adjusting for relevant covariates, individuals in precarious employment face a heightened likelihood of missing rent or mortgage payments and residing in shared living arrangements. However, no statistically significant association emerges between precarious employment and the risk of eviction or homelessness. Beyond these housing instability indicators, precarious employment is also linked to increased exposure to housing related hardships, including borrowing money to meet basic expenses and utility payment delinquency. Notably, the significant associations persist even after controlling for poverty categories, suggesting that employment precarity exacerbates housing vulnerabilities beyond earnings alone.

Conclusions and Implications: These findings underscore the urgent need to address labor market conditions to mitigate housing instability, reinforcing the need to assess labor conditions interrelatedness to housing-related processes. Addressing the root causes of precarious employment—through stronger labor protections, wage policies, and social safety nets—may be just as critical as expanding affordable housing in ensuring residential stability for vulnerable populations.