3 ms·

No. Housing should be an asset. If all housing and land were liabilities, then they would all be owned by the government (we tried that, most people didn't li

No. Housing should be an asset. If all housing and land were liabilities, then they would all be owned by the government (we tried that, most people didn't like it). The fact that homes are assets are not stopping people from owning homes (and why the f would someone want to own one if they were a liability in the first place?!?!). the median income in the US is about 60k and median home price is about 200k. you only need 3.5% to qualify for a FHA loan. I managed to save that when I was making less than half of the median income. We dont have a problem of people investing in homes, we have a problem of people not having good financial health (do to their own bad financial decisions). in 2013, home prices were falling and interest rates were at a then all time low of 3.25%. I told people 'go buy a home, any home!' people were like 'but home prices are going down' 'interest rates may drop further'. or people were proud and smug that they didnt own a home, as if they achieved something because of the 'losers' that bought homes had their home values go down. but they didnt buy, now those same people are complaining that prices are too high, yet they dont have 7k saved for a down payment.

mjevans 6y ago
You're using averages from a statistically highly invariant sample range. If a mean average is taken of everyone in society and all of the places in society, some fit that might sound reasonable is very likely. However like the article what matters are prices within actual places that people want to live. Like a city they grew up in, a city that actually has jobs, a place with a functional educational system for their children. I assume you and everyone else would like to have service workers inside of big cities? Where should they live? Where should everyone else that isn't in the top 10% of income earners live? How can owning a home close to a job, and actually being able to put down roots and build a community be incentivized? In my mind that is logically divorced from renting and serfdom, and thus housing should be a liability rather than an asset.

mjevans 6y ago

You're using averages from a statistically highly invariant sample range. If a mean average is taken of everyone in society and all of the places in society, some fit that might sound reasonable is very likely. However like the article what matters are prices within actual places that people want to live. Like a city they grew up in, a city that actually has jobs, a place with a functional educational system for their children. I assume you and everyone else would like to have service workers inside of big cities? Where should they live? Where should everyone else that isn't in the top 10% of income earners live? How can owning a home close to a job, and actually being able to put down roots and build a community be incentivized? In my mind that is logically divorced from renting and serfdom, and thus housing should be a liability rather than an asset.