3 ms·
I have been saying real estate is not going to do well long term even before the plague. Absolutely no reason for real estate to represent > 60% of wealth in t
by naveen99 6y ago
I have been saying real estate is not going to do well long term even before the plague. Absolutely no reason for real estate to represent > 60% of wealth in the future. Breathing the same air as someone else usually a liability, only rarely worth the risk. Once people start doing remote relationships only meeting for procreation, real estate will go to zero. Yes this might take a while, and I am not waiting for it... but it’s going to happen.
- jmvoodoo 6y agoSo, people are going to raise children over zoom? And do so without a roof over their head? Remote work certainly seems possible, and that would cause a change in real estate prices in many areas. But claiming that real estate as a whole will suddenly be worthless on any timeline seems a bit far fetched.
- naveen99 6y agoI didn’t say suddenly. Like I said, procreation requires proximity... raising children is procreation.
- dragonwriter 6y agoLocation isn't important just for procreation. There are reasons that certain places are more attractive to live than others other than that (climate, accessibility for trade goods, proximity to natural physical recreation venues, etc.) Shifts in technology may change exactly what locations are more attractive, but they won't change that some locations are more attractive and that land in attractive locations is scarce.
- naveen99 6y agoAgree. But there will definitely be a lot of losers in the locations that lose value...