> in truth it should be an expense and a liability I have to raise an eyebrow when someone says "truth" and/or "should", as if there's a hidden One True Way.

> in truth it should be an expense and a liability I have to raise an eyebrow when someone says "truth" and/or "should", as if there's a hidden One True Way. I do think that David Ricardo's theory of rent holds. > As houses get older, their value should decrease. "Value should decrease" is doing a lot of lifting in oversimplifying, if not positioning itself counter to, reality. eg My area is growing by ~10k a year across 3 adjacent municipalities. Population growth (migration+births) contributes to a growing area in a way that's self-reinforcing (availability). So depreciation is often outpaced on that basis which has nothing to do with specific characteristics of structure. Houses also have a multidimensional value. Proximity to specific locations (subjectively vary in value), safety, amenities, maintenance costs, etc all contribute. Home from 1950? https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1826-3rd-St-N-Fargo-ND-58102/66542948_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1826-3rd-St-N-Fargo-ND-58... What about the multimillion dollar homes on cliffs? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/14/dana-point-landslide-homes-california https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/14/dana-point-l... - with less than 2 mil, you can rehabilitate these places with some demo and rebuild. How does this affect the calculations? Well, it doesn't seem to hurt as much as some might imagine. People are resilient and optimistic, long term, and happy to own the roof over their head in the short term to give themselves agency. These value motivate people to buy what's available and prices do not fall as if they exist in a vacuum.