Houses should be investments… in the same sense that a good, durable pair of shoes is an investment.
In a well designed system, the value of property should stay pretty flat over time, and the value of a structure built on that property should slowly go down over time as wear and tear sets in.
It’s ridiculous that it makes sense to buy more home than you need, and to hold onto a house longer than you need it because it’s one of the best and safest money-earning investments you can make. It’s especially annoying as someone in a position to make that investment gets to live inside their investment and enjoy it even as it appreciates in value.
Nothing else works that way. Can you imagine if you bought a classic car and drove it on the road as a daily driver and it went up in value? Or, if you bought a rare Magic the Gathering card, used it in your regular deck, and somehow it only became more valuable?
I’m mean, once you’re comfortable with a monthly payment why would you leave if the house suits your needs? Or payoff the asset and not have a payment. The being, you shouldn’t think of housing as something that depreciates over time, it’s not a car, you can fix it up, you can repair it to make it last 30 more years. Cars not always
I’m mean, once you’re comfortable with a monthly payment why would you leave if the house suits your needs?
You could say the same about a pair of shoes. If they’re in good shape, why not keep using them as long as they still suit your needs? If you get a good pair of leather shoes they can last decades needing only the occasional repair.
The difference is that you wouldn’t expect your shoes to go up in value every year even while you’re wearing them.
The reason why it matters is that someone with a good job can’t afford a house anymore, and shelter is right there at the bottom of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Houses should be investments… in the same sense that a good, durable pair of shoes is an investment.
In a well designed system, the value of property should stay pretty flat over time, and the value of a structure built on that property should slowly go down over time as wear and tear sets in.
It’s ridiculous that it makes sense to buy more home than you need, and to hold onto a house longer than you need it because it’s one of the best and safest money-earning investments you can make. It’s especially annoying as someone in a position to make that investment gets to live inside their investment and enjoy it even as it appreciates in value.
Nothing else works that way. Can you imagine if you bought a classic car and drove it on the road as a daily driver and it went up in value? Or, if you bought a rare Magic the Gathering card, used it in your regular deck, and somehow it only became more valuable?
I’m mean, once you’re comfortable with a monthly payment why would you leave if the house suits your needs? Or payoff the asset and not have a payment. The being, you shouldn’t think of housing as something that depreciates over time, it’s not a car, you can fix it up, you can repair it to make it last 30 more years. Cars not always
You could say the same about a pair of shoes. If they’re in good shape, why not keep using them as long as they still suit your needs? If you get a good pair of leather shoes they can last decades needing only the occasional repair.
The difference is that you wouldn’t expect your shoes to go up in value every year even while you’re wearing them.
The reason why it matters is that someone with a good job can’t afford a house anymore, and shelter is right there at the bottom of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
I’m mean all the examples I’ve seen have very limited life spans, houses can last hundreds of years. It’s apples and oranges
That’s not the reason it’s apples and oranges.