3 ms·
You're right. Ops position was that housing should not be seen as any kind of investment. My point was that, for retirees, housing is a valid investment vehicle
by FooHentai 6y ago
You're right. Ops position was that housing should not be seen as any kind of investment. My point was that, for retirees, housing is a valid investment vehicle and that dynamic is valuable to society as a whole. But on reflection, I'm thinking in the wrong terms here. I could better view this as housing being an important store of value for retirees, rather than an investment generating financial return for them.
- clairity 6y agoexactly. i'm actually ok with a primary home being a modest investment (like 0-1%/year appreciation over inflation, but not 2+%), i'm unabashedly against naked wealth extraction via the corporatized investment mentality, leaving people homeless, or at the very least broadly overleveraged (a profoundly negative externality). there's also the oft-mentioned japanese view that homes are a depreciating asset, though land values remain quite high, so the asset class is still modestly investible, iirc.