3 ms·

>> many others are planning our retirements accounts around assumptions of 8-9% growth. Another aspect of retirement should be figuring out how to lower the co

>> many others are planning our retirements accounts around assumptions of 8-9% growth. Another aspect of retirement should be figuring out how to lower the cost of living. Unfortunately the notion that housing should be a sort of investment goes directly against that. It can't be affordable and also be a good investment.

bombcar 4y ago
There is one way to be both without causing disaster - defeat the devil of depreciation. If you "invest" in your home/property by making it more durable and better you can have it go up in value and down in costs without needing infinite appreciation of land and structure. For example, if you can spend $20k (random amount) and forever cut your heating bill in half, that's an investment that will continue to pay dividends "forever".
- treeman79 4y ago
  If housing is being constructed at the rate of X per month. And population is increasing at X*2 per month. Nothing else matters. House prices will go up overall. Basic supply and demand.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, I was pointing out you can have an "investment" even if all the other supply issues are solved (enough houses are built to satisfy demand, etc, real appreciation is basically zero).
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    In the past 30 Years Berlin had housing go up in value 10x but population went up 1%. Look it up The current financial system created the housing criss.
    - Steltek 4y ago
      In my town, population went down but children-per-family decreased even more, effectively raising the number of households/family-units that needed separate homes. A raw population count is not always what it seems.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        If we take that view, we need population to fall by 40% just for house prices to not grow?
        ensignavenger 4y ago
        No- we need to build more homes.
soco 4y ago
Your own house is not an "investment" as such, it's part of your life support after retiring. It doesn't really matter what value it has on the market, if it supports you over those years without needing too much maintenance. And after you expire, you won't care anyway what residual value it had.

bombcar 4y ago

There is one way to be both without causing disaster - defeat the devil of depreciation. If you "invest" in your home/property by making it more durable and better you can have it go up in value and down in costs without needing infinite appreciation of land and structure. For example, if you can spend $20k (random amount) and forever cut your heating bill in half, that's an investment that will continue to pay dividends "forever".

treeman79 4y ago
If housing is being constructed at the rate of X per month. And population is increasing at X*2 per month. Nothing else matters. House prices will go up overall. Basic supply and demand.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, I was pointing out you can have an "investment" even if all the other supply issues are solved (enough houses are built to satisfy demand, etc, real appreciation is basically zero).
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  In the past 30 Years Berlin had housing go up in value 10x but population went up 1%. Look it up The current financial system created the housing criss.
  - Steltek 4y ago
    In my town, population went down but children-per-family decreased even more, effectively raising the number of households/family-units that needed separate homes. A raw population count is not always what it seems.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      If we take that view, we need population to fall by 40% just for house prices to not grow?
      - ensignavenger 4y ago
        No- we need to build more homes.

soco 4y ago

Your own house is not an "investment" as such, it's part of your life support after retiring. It doesn't really matter what value it has on the market, if it supports you over those years without needing too much maintenance. And after you expire, you won't care anyway what residual value it had.