3 ms·

> Homes should be a place to live, not a financial investment Maybe they shouldn't be investments, but they are, and you can't expect people to ignore this. I

by thunky 2y ago

> Homes should be a place to live, not a financial investment Maybe they shouldn't be investments, but they are, and you can't expect people to ignore this. I will agree that the government shouldn't incentivise this behavior, but even without the government's help they will continue to be a large portion of household wealth, like it or not. > Denser development is much more environmentally friendly Sorry when I said "the environment" I meant the living environment, as in: the common preference to live in a quiet low density neighborhood rather than a loud dense urban environment with all of the problems that come with it. I don't know where you live, but ignoring money and housing/rental values, if the population of your block increased 10x would you be happy about it? Even if you would be excited by that, not everyone will agree with you that stacking ourselves on top of eachother is the pinnacle of human civilization.

chii 2y ago
> Maybe they shouldn't be investments, but they are, and you can't expect people to ignore this. exactly. Anything that cost time and effort to create is an investment. To have homes not be an investment is to say it's not going to take time nor effort to make. People can choose to ignore this reality, but it only hurts them financially.
- UtopiaPunk 2y ago
  You're not wrong, but I don't think I made my point clear. "Financial investment" is a phrase I use to mean investing money with the expectation of receiving more money in the future. For example, a car or a computer are "investments" in the sense you used the term in that they cost money, and a person must decide if they are worth the high cost. But no one expects a car or computer to be worth more money later. The value they provide is something other than financial. But housing is treated almost like stocks or gold, in that they are "financial investments." People buy a house and they expect, even depend, on the house being worth more money in the future. My point is that a house should be treated like a car or computer, not a tool for growing financial assets.

by thunky 2y ago

chii 2y ago

> Maybe they shouldn't be investments, but they are, and you can't expect people to ignore this. exactly. Anything that cost time and effort to create is an investment. To have homes not be an investment is to say it's not going to take time nor effort to make. People can choose to ignore this reality, but it only hurts them financially.

UtopiaPunk 2y ago
You're not wrong, but I don't think I made my point clear. "Financial investment" is a phrase I use to mean investing money with the expectation of receiving more money in the future. For example, a car or a computer are "investments" in the sense you used the term in that they cost money, and a person must decide if they are worth the high cost. But no one expects a car or computer to be worth more money later. The value they provide is something other than financial. But housing is treated almost like stocks or gold, in that they are "financial investments." People buy a house and they expect, even depend, on the house being worth more money in the future. My point is that a house should be treated like a car or computer, not a tool for growing financial assets.