3 ms·
I wonder why no one seems to take into account that house is something that wears off with time. Shouldn't the value of the house asymptotically aproach zero,
by mamon 10y ago
I wonder why no one seems to take into account that house is something that wears off with time.
Shouldn't the value of the house asymptotically aproach zero, given long enough timeframe? I mean, at some point, like maybe in 100 years it should eventually rot and collapse. Or you can keep fixing and redecorating it, but that also costs money.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoWell, the land never goes to zero. The house may (or may even be worth less than zero), but not the land...
- planteen 10y agoExactly. That's why in Denver you see lots of old houses getting purchased only for their land, torn down, and then a new $800k house in their place.
- superuser2 10y agoAny sane rent vs. buy calculation is going to include maintenance, i.e. battling entropy to make sure that doesn't happen. More to the point I don't think many houses have reached that point. In my casual observation new construction tends to be either not single family homes (different economics) or on undeveloped land. Teardowns are relatively rare in old neighborhoods (though additions and renovations are quite common).
- gozur88 10y agoThere are houses that last for hundreds of years. You can make them last if you're willing to keep repairing things.