3 ms·
That's only really true if you are talking about specific houses and locations, while keeping everything else unchanged. In general, houses are just as desirab
by esja 5y ago
That's only really true if you are talking about specific houses and locations, while keeping everything else unchanged.
In general, houses are just as desirable as they were a few years ago when they were half the price. All that has materially changed is the supply and cost of credit.
The same thing works on the downside: broad price falls are not due to mass desirability changes. They are due to credit becoming harder to get and more expensive to repay on a monthly basis.
Finance 101: asset prices move inverse to the discount rate.
- skwirl 5y agoI never said macro price changes were driven by desirability changes - my point was almost exactly the opposite: The macro price is irrelevant. The top 5% of homes for sale will never be available to 50% of buyers. Price differences at a point in time signal relative desirability of homes. Over time, prices may go up or down, but the top 5% of homes will always be significantly more expensive than the median home.
- esja 5y agoThat's a different point than what I think the OP was making, and it's not entirely accurate either (except in a relative sense). For it to be completely correct, buying power would have to move identically with prices, and it does not. There have been many periods and places in history where the median income earner can afford a top 20% home (but may not choose to), and many other periods where the median income earner can only afford a bottom 20% home, and may instead choose to rent. What we've seen over the past decades is an acceleration of price ahead of buying power, pushing more people into renting, and leading to an accumulation of multiple properties in the hands of a smaller number of wealthier people (or institutions like Blackstone).