4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand this argument. It may be true that housing is a basic need. But that doesn't change the fact that housing is also finite. And unlike f

I'm not sure I understand this argument. It may be true that housing is a basic need. But that doesn't change the fact that housing is also finite. And unlike food or cars, it's not a depreciating asset; a house rarely breaks down. Even when it does, the land it's built on is still yours. When food goes rotten or a car gets totaled, you have to throw it out. What do you propose?

garbagetime 5y ago
Housing is finite in the sense that all things on Earth are finite. But more houses may always be built. And I do disagree that houses are not depreciating assets. The technology and the style of a house become outdated. And much deteriorates over time. Yes, the land may not depreciate, but that is a separate matter from, or, at best, only a component of the value of the house.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  I think this just sidesteps the argument entirely. Yes, everything on Earth is finite. But that doesn't change the fact that nearly an endless supply of cars can be built, whereas you can't build an endless supply of houses. You can maybe build a bunch of apartment buildings to build housing, but those aren't houses.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    The problem being that in order to build houses or cars you need the cooperation of everyone involved - the property owners, the contractors, the municipality. How do you propose to extract this cooperation if it's not forthcoming? Handcuffs?
  - garbagetime 5y ago
    I'm more than happy to sidestep the argument. I think the most sensible thing for us to discuss is homes rather than houses. We can build a lot of homes in areas where there is high demand for them by upping housing density in those areas. Building a lot of homes also reduces demand for individual houses, so helps to slow the increase of price of houses.
mattnewton 5y ago
Housing is not necessarily equal to land- We can densify and build more homes per plot of land. Where legally allowed, this actually increases the value of the land as an investment while making housing, the consumable part, cheaper.
fastball 5y ago
1. Housing does not need to be finite, that's a huge part of the problem. Municipalities choosing for housing to be finite / constrained. 2. Have you never owned a house? Houses break down all the time.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Houses break down, but they don't literally become totaled, the way a car or food does. I don't get the comparison. And obviously I've never owned a house. I'm 33. Only boomers own houses.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    Totaled doesn't necessarily mean completely destroyed. It just means the cost to repair is more than the value of the item. It is entirely possible for a house, or even a plot of land, to cost more to repair than it is worth. It's a bit more complicated, since location isn't entirely fungible, but I'd argue most people are willing to live in more than one specific plot of land.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > they don't literally become totaled, the way a car or food does Yeah, they do. When the cost of repairs and renovation get too much, the house is 'dozed and a new one built. Happens all the time.
  - mjevans 5y ago
    Some of them own multiple houses and rent them out as literal rent-seekers. Our tax code should give benefits for houses lived in for 35% or more of the year, but classify as a completely different category investments; and tax them accordingly harshly.
    - dannyw 5y ago
      The US tax code intentionally taxes investments and dividends at about half the rate as income.
  - 5y ago
yobbo 5y ago
> it's not a depreciating asset Yes, they depreciate, and much faster than you imagine before you have seen it. This can be experienced in buildings in depopulated towns that have been vacant for only a few years. Houses that are not heated/vented/repainted/repaired become complete write-offs in just a few years. (and remodelling bathrooms and kitchens doesn't count.) Maintaining a house at equilibrium is a negative cash flow that grows over time. The same is true for infrastructure such as roads, water, sewage, and so on.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  It depends on how and what the house is made from. A house in Europe is built to last longer, using bricks and concrete. The roof is made of ceramic tiles. It still needs maintenance but less of it and less often. An American style home is likely built from wood panels. It takes more money to maintain but it can be built cheaper. Like with anything you can chose from trade offs.

garbagetime 5y ago

Housing is finite in the sense that all things on Earth are finite. But more houses may always be built. And I do disagree that houses are not depreciating assets. The technology and the style of a house become outdated. And much deteriorates over time. Yes, the land may not depreciate, but that is a separate matter from, or, at best, only a component of the value of the house.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
I think this just sidesteps the argument entirely. Yes, everything on Earth is finite. But that doesn't change the fact that nearly an endless supply of cars can be built, whereas you can't build an endless supply of houses. You can maybe build a bunch of apartment buildings to build housing, but those aren't houses.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  The problem being that in order to build houses or cars you need the cooperation of everyone involved - the property owners, the contractors, the municipality. How do you propose to extract this cooperation if it's not forthcoming? Handcuffs?
- garbagetime 5y ago
  I'm more than happy to sidestep the argument. I think the most sensible thing for us to discuss is homes rather than houses. We can build a lot of homes in areas where there is high demand for them by upping housing density in those areas. Building a lot of homes also reduces demand for individual houses, so helps to slow the increase of price of houses.

mattnewton 5y ago

Housing is not necessarily equal to land- We can densify and build more homes per plot of land. Where legally allowed, this actually increases the value of the land as an investment while making housing, the consumable part, cheaper.

fastball 5y ago

1. Housing does not need to be finite, that's a huge part of the problem. Municipalities choosing for housing to be finite / constrained. 2. Have you never owned a house? Houses break down all the time.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
Houses break down, but they don't literally become totaled, the way a car or food does. I don't get the comparison. And obviously I've never owned a house. I'm 33. Only boomers own houses.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Totaled doesn't necessarily mean completely destroyed. It just means the cost to repair is more than the value of the item. It is entirely possible for a house, or even a plot of land, to cost more to repair than it is worth. It's a bit more complicated, since location isn't entirely fungible, but I'd argue most people are willing to live in more than one specific plot of land.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > they don't literally become totaled, the way a car or food does Yeah, they do. When the cost of repairs and renovation get too much, the house is 'dozed and a new one built. Happens all the time.
- mjevans 5y ago
  Some of them own multiple houses and rent them out as literal rent-seekers. Our tax code should give benefits for houses lived in for 35% or more of the year, but classify as a completely different category investments; and tax them accordingly harshly.
  - dannyw 5y ago
    The US tax code intentionally taxes investments and dividends at about half the rate as income.
- 5y ago

yobbo 5y ago

> it's not a depreciating asset Yes, they depreciate, and much faster than you imagine before you have seen it. This can be experienced in buildings in depopulated towns that have been vacant for only a few years. Houses that are not heated/vented/repainted/repaired become complete write-offs in just a few years. (and remodelling bathrooms and kitchens doesn't count.) Maintaining a house at equilibrium is a negative cash flow that grows over time. The same is true for infrastructure such as roads, water, sewage, and so on.

DeathArrow 5y ago
It depends on how and what the house is made from. A house in Europe is built to last longer, using bricks and concrete. The roof is made of ceramic tiles. It still needs maintenance but less of it and less often. An American style home is likely built from wood panels. It takes more money to maintain but it can be built cheaper. Like with anything you can chose from trade offs.