4 ms·
Houses are debt, but are generally and appreciating asset Cars are a depreciating asset. It usually does not make sense to go into debt to get one
by SJC_Hacker 1y ago
Houses are debt, but are generally and appreciating asset
Cars are a depreciating asset. It usually does not make sense to go into debt to get one
- whycome 1y agoIt’s interesting how the language allows a weird cognitive out. It’s not debt, it’s a mortgage and they ‘own’ the home.
- milesrout 1y agoNobody said it isn't debt. The difference is that it is debt that makes sense: you can't realistically buy land without it, and houses tend to appreciate so the interest costs are less of a problem - they just represent the time value of money. Most other debts people incur personally are to buy things they could save for, which go down in value. Like cars.
- whycome 1y agoThat’s the out. I’ve seen many people explain what their debts are and don’t think of their mortgage as one.
- tim333 1y agoIt's not a weird cognitive out, there are major differences, legal and financial between say credit card debt and a mortgage on a house.
- darth_avocado 1y agoCars are a necessity in pretty much most of the country. Even in areas with good public transit, people who are most likely to go into debt to buy a car are also more likely to live further away from public transit and commute for work. Outside of New York, I can’t think of another city where living without a car is really an option.
- SoftTalker 1y agoChicago. Probably a few other big cities.
- wombatpm 1y agoYes, but you have to live in the City. The suburbs are impossible without a car.
- SoftTalker 1y agoWell, around Chicago some of the smaller suburbs have a nice little downtown and are on a train line into the city. If you lived near that you might get by just using online shopping and uber if you occasionally needed to go somewhere. There is bus service too but it's not that good. But in general, and in the larger suburbs yes you would be pretty inconvenienced without a car. But that is true of suburbs everywhere.
- tptacek 1y agoYou'd be fine in basically all of the inner-ring suburbs except maybe on the south side.
- tacticalturtle 1y agoBoston. DC. Chicago. I’ve heard Philly and SF as well, but have never been.
- darth_avocado 1y agoBay Area (including SF) public transportation is generally terrible, definitely not at all a great option for people who can’t even live in SF but have to commute to SF because of how expensive it is.
- throwaway2037 1y ago
- nradov 1y agoHouses are a depreciating asset. They require constant maintenance expenses just to hold their value. It's the land under the house that's the appreciating asset.
- afavour 1y agoIs there really a meaningful difference when you’re not able to buy one without buying the other?
- jackvalentine 1y agoMaybe - we’re trying to sell a deceased family member’s block of land that might be worth more in the market if we demoed the building because it’s unliveable.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- amluto 1y agoSort of. In a lot of areas, the cost of the house has skyrocketed in the last few decades. One factor is that you can’t buy an empty lot and then build a 20 year old $250k house on it in most markets. If you want to build a house, that house will be new (obviously — relocating an old house is a real pain), and the costs of construction are silly. This effect inflates the value of old houses in a lot of markets. Of course, in markets that don’t have plenty of inventory of both empty lots and lots with old houses, it can be hard to value the house by itself.
- LoganDark 1y ago> relocating an old house is a real pain Has relocating an old house even been done? (Assuming the house wasn't built to be movable.)
- jwagenet 1y agoSomewhat recently in SF. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/23/san-francisco-victorian-house-moved https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/23/san-francisc...