Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except no one decided that - it falls naturally out of the facts that homes are expensive (and therefore represent a large chunk of the wealth of most people) and that homes do not depreciate very much as a result of people living in them.
> homes do not depreciate very much as a result of people living in them. I get what you are saying, but this part above isn't a "natural order of things". For example, homes in Japan are expensive (perhaps representing an even larger fraction of lifetime earnings than in the Statse) yet they depreciate like they are cars.
They depreciate like they are cars because Japan focuses on the new. You don't buy a house, you buy the land, knock down the existing house, and build a new one. You don't buy a used car, you buy a new one unless you're broke. There's precious little used market for anything, which can be a boon to those of us who want to buy nice used film cameras from Japanese ebay sellers.