That's true. But note that these dwellings are also illegal in China, just that rule of law in China is not as strong as it is in America.
Anyways, American moral standards prevent us from just giving people window less rooms to live in, it has to be $100k/tiny home that will last only a few years, or something else crazy like that.
It's true. I have noticed this. I think it's because American moral standards conform to the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics. Pareto improvements are insufficient. Interaction implies that some high standard must be met. Therefore, if we give someone something it is insufficient that it is better. It must be good.
Ya, western ethics are a bit harsh. Take the minimum wage, it doesn't just put a bottom on what employers can pay a person, but it puts a bottom on how productive a person must be to get any job at all (lest the job be eliminated as "not worth it"). Similarly so: putting a bottom on housing prevents slums and health hazards, but it deprives some people of housing because they cannot afford this bottom.
On the other hand, it forces people to become better, and most of them do. Social services help and hurt the problem: on the one hand, you won't die quickly if you become addicted to fentanyl, but on the other hand, the lack of immediate harsh consequences can make dipping into drugs appear less risky. On the other hand, in China, where bottoms are non-existent, and social services are very moralistic, if there are any at all, you know doing drugs is pretty much a death sentence. Even becoming a member of the ant tribe won't save you.
Anyways, American moral standards prevent us from just giving people window less rooms to live in, it has to be $100k/tiny home that will last only a few years, or something else crazy like that.