6 ms·

>Rising home values are a zero-sum game. It makes people look wealthier on paper, but there's nothing good that comes from gains in housing prices. If I substi

>Rising home values are a zero-sum game. It makes people look wealthier on paper, but there's nothing good that comes from gains in housing prices. If I substitute the word "stock" for the word "housing", would you still agree with the statement? If not, what differentiates housing-as-an-asset from stocks-as-an-asset from a wealth perspective? It's not like we can't have more of either of them.

dgfitz 2y ago
Liquidity.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mywittyname 2y ago
No. I own plenty of stock and a house. My house increasing in value has done nothing for me except raise my property taxes. The increased value of my stock holdings has resulted in a very nice increase in my quarterly dividend distribution. Thus, I see an increase in stock value the same way I see any other increase in my income. I could sell my house an pocket those gains, but I'd have to buy another house that has also experienced the same, or even greater price increases. Or rent smaller apartment at 2-3x my monthly mortgage. In reality, calling housing inflation "zero sum" is being generous. It's pretty much an economic drag on society. Having the price of housing get cheaper over time would probably be better. > housing-as-an-asset from stocks-as-an-asset Of course these are both "assets." But stocks are an income producing investment while my house is more akin to my car: it costs me money but provides me with necessary functionality. If I owned rental properties, then I'd call those income producing investments, but I don't own rentals.
- NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
  >The increased value of my stock holdings has resulted in a very nice increase in my quarterly dividend distribution. But there are masses of companies in the S&P 500 that don't even pay dividends. The dividend yield of the index is like 1.3%.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    The annual dividend on my house is 0.0%

dgfitz 2y ago

Liquidity.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mywittyname 2y ago

No. I own plenty of stock and a house. My house increasing in value has done nothing for me except raise my property taxes. The increased value of my stock holdings has resulted in a very nice increase in my quarterly dividend distribution. Thus, I see an increase in stock value the same way I see any other increase in my income. I could sell my house an pocket those gains, but I'd have to buy another house that has also experienced the same, or even greater price increases. Or rent smaller apartment at 2-3x my monthly mortgage. In reality, calling housing inflation "zero sum" is being generous. It's pretty much an economic drag on society. Having the price of housing get cheaper over time would probably be better. > housing-as-an-asset from stocks-as-an-asset Of course these are both "assets." But stocks are an income producing investment while my house is more akin to my car: it costs me money but provides me with necessary functionality. If I owned rental properties, then I'd call those income producing investments, but I don't own rentals.

NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
>The increased value of my stock holdings has resulted in a very nice increase in my quarterly dividend distribution. But there are masses of companies in the S&P 500 that don't even pay dividends. The dividend yield of the index is like 1.3%.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  The annual dividend on my house is 0.0%