3 ms·
No, it's far less risky to invest in housing. These two graphs over long term illustrate the difference in risk: Average home price since 1965: https://fred.st
by glitchc 2y ago
No, it's far less risky to invest in housing. These two graphs over long term illustrate the difference in risk:
Average home price since 1965: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS
Average Dow Jones index since 1919 [adjust scale to ~1965]: https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historic...
- crooked-v 2y agoThough it helps to keep in mind that returns there are because the US housing market has been distorted beyond all recognition by under-building that goes back to the civil rights era.
- jopsen 2y agoYou could also argue that there was population growth, and we might not see that in future. So under-building in the future will be harder, as houses exist. Of course, it's hard to know how population growth will work out in the future. And even harder to know how it'll work out in your neighborhood :D
- bobthepanda 2y agoeven without population growth, household size decline means that there will be more demand for housing, since the same amount of people divided by smaller household size = more households.
- aidenn0 2y agoIsn't the latter CPI adjusted, but not the former?
- glitchc 2y agoThank you for that, I forgot to mention it: Both inflation adjusted and log plotting need to be turned off (as checkboxes) for an apples to apples comparison.