171–180 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why we aught to never have subcidies or bailouts.
No. There is no perfect system. That doesn't mean you don't implement systems. You just police them better to make sure that kind of problem doesn't happen any more.
If real estate is to be a good investment, it must become less affordable over time. The idea that real estate in general is a good investment is dangerous to our economy. The solution to housing is reducing subsidies and removing supply side restrictions. However these are not politically popular in a world where people want housing prices to go up.
The idea that even as a locale becomes more desirable it should remain just as affordable is dangerous to our economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is this? So if it was 20K new, it's 10M now?
How much do you think it cost to build houses a couple hundred years ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In much of the North and Rust Belt of the US, houses declined in real dollars between the heydey of the mid-20th century and now. Detroit is a good example.
Ok but didn't Detroit like... collapse? Not every city is an economic monoculture of an industry that was offshored.
Even if only 10% of the jobs are taken by a single company or industry, losing that is sufficient to stop price growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>more people own homes than at any other point in history. Not in the US, and this article is about Americans.
As a total amount, yes. Percentages aren’t relevant especially as you consider the high rates of immigration and that many younger people make the lifestyle choice to rent in urban centers until they’re older and want a home in the suburbs.
Seriously, you seem to think there's something profound about "total population numbers go up, all the numbers go up"?
This article is extremely confusing. It's comparing stocks, a purely financial instrument, with a personal home that you live in and calling that "flipping houses." It's just all over the place and very surprising it's coming from such a mainstream publication. People mainly buy the houses they live in in order to have a place to live, full stop. Investment properties are a completely different concept and most Ameri…
I guess the article is based on a survey where the question was "For money you wouldn't need for more than 10 years, which ONE of the following do you think would be the best way to invest it?" and the top answer is "real estate."
So yeah, that doesn't AT ALL mean that people who answer "real estate" think that the house that they live in will make them rich. Some might think that, but most people think buying an investment property means that the buyer will buy low and rehab it to flip or rent it to collect income. The entire premise of this article just doesn't make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government should have disincentivized using houses as an investment vehicle. Houses are for families to live in. The primary asset houses should provide are the family and the work they do, not the house. But if a house costs so much money that the family can't really take risks, then the house just becomes a debt prison.
However, you can't ignore the fact that homes have real tangible value and limited supply. As long as this is true, they will be a store of value.
You can build 8-15 new houses in about a month for what it costs for one outside of LA.