3 ms·
I'm not sure why it has to be that way. Build more houses.
by JKCalhoun 1y ago
I'm not sure why it has to be that way. Build more houses.
- apwell23 1y agothen it wouldn't be "smartest investment"
- JKCalhoun 1y agoI moved from an expensive real estate market to a less expensive one. That has nothing to do with appreciation — just equity. Further, when I downsize — even in the same real estate market — that too is equity working in my favor independent of appreciation.
- sokoloff 1y agoHow is getting your own money back, many years later, without appreciation "equity working in [your] favor"? Without the appreciation (and leverage multiplying that), buying housing would be nowhere near as good an investment. (As it stands today, it's phenomenal, of course.)
- JKCalhoun 1y agoThe alternative of course is giving your money to a landlord (and zero equity and zero money back). That is certainly less favorable?
- sokoloff 1y agoI'm on team "own the home you live in if your circumstances allow", but if there was no appreciation, your equity isn't "working for you" in any way that I can detect/imagine.
- thehappypm 1y agoThe problem is “where”. Building them in random lots in Florida or upstate New York is exactly what builders were doing in the runup to the financial crisis. Building them in already-dense places is always tricky because of NIMBYism