To be precise, a house is a depreciating asset, but the land it sits on is (almost alwasys) an appreciating one. Most homes are built well enough that their rat

To be precise, a house is a depreciating asset, but the land it sits on is (almost alwasys) an appreciating one. Most homes are built well enough that their rate of depreciation is slow. And since the purchase price is high compared to a car, it is more affordable to spend a few thousand dollars rennovating an aging house than an aging car. But eventually the house will break down and its value will go to zero. In terms of longevity, the most successful house to date is the Great Pyramid of Giza, and it is so heavily worn that its value is now mostly due to the tourist dollars it brings in because of its uniqueness. If cars were tethered to a plot of land in the same way houses are, the comparison between cars and houses might be more valid. Investing in parking spaces can actually be profitable, in some cases. But whether you buy a house or a car, you're buying a construction that time and weather will ultimately beat into a worthless object. Ordinary homebuyers are too used to thinking of a house as an investment by its very nature and ignoring both the expenses of homeownership and the investment quality of the land the house sits on. Even land is a depreciating invesment in an area where the population is sharply declining and tourism/business is minimal. Nothing is a good investment by its nature, only by the circumstances in which it exists.