3 ms·
So you're saying the value of housing stock should not appreciate? That's going to be a tough sell to its owners. If we want housing to be an investment, we ha
by bandrami 7y ago
So you're saying the value of housing stock should not appreciate? That's going to be a tough sell to its owners.
If we want housing to be an investment, we have to acknowledge it's going to rise in value faster than inflation (otherwise it's a crap investment), which means it won't be affordable.
Conversely, if we want housing to be affordable, it cannot rise in value faster than inflation, which means it can't be a good investment.
As Charles Marohn says, it's not even a "problem", in that problems have solutions. It's a predicament.
- Apocryphon 7y ago> If we want housing to be an investment That seems to be the problem at its core.
- bandrami 7y agoI agree, but the word hasn't gotten out very well.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- winfred 7y agoIt's called "housing", seems to me that the core functionality is to house, not to gain wealth. We might have comingled it with investing, but there's no need for that. Also housing can't rise faster in value than inflation long term. It can for a while but eventually it'll reach a point where even with a 30 year loan you can't purchase it with any job in the area where the house is located. So if housing is fundamentally unsuited for gaining wealth in the long term for anyone but the wealthy and if it's core function is to house people, then I don't see a need for housing cost to appreciate above inflation.