Why would you think that? A well built house can last hundreds of years. Why should it not be an investment?
It makes absolutely no sense to put any kind of money into something that one day will be worthless - like I read that it happens in Japan that on average a house is worthless after about 40 years.
> It makes absolutely no sense to put any kind of money into something that one day will be worthless
Cars, TVs, bicycles, the vast majority of furniture.
> like I read that it happens in Japan that on average a house is worthless after about 40 years.
And if you rent a place you "lose" all your money the moment you move out of it.
If my mortgage payment was cut in half but in return my house didn't appreciate in value, that would be a net win for me since I could dump more money into other investment vehicles.
Heck, just reducing the amount of friction of moving would introduce huge positive changes.
If houses in nice cities didn't cost over a million, people could move away from bad lawmakers!
> Cars, TVs, bicycles, the vast majority of furniture.
These are consumables. Except maybe for the car if its something that one day can be worth a lot of money because it is nice. Like a '67 Mustang :)
> If houses in nice cities didn't cost over a million, people could move away from bad lawmakers!
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I see a benefit having a nice city and somehow a high house price is what you pay to live in a nice city.
I own a house, because houses cost so damn much, and are so hard to find, and mortgage rates have increased, realistically I cannot change a house for a long time.
This means my job mobility is limited, I am stuck finding work in my local area.
It also means if I disagree with local politics, well too bad, I can't vote with my feet.
Many people are in this same situation.
People who are poor and stuck in cities with few prospects, cannot realistically move to coastal cities with higher paying jobs because of how high housing prices are.
Traditionally if people wanted to have better opportunities, escape corrupt small town politics, or just get away from abusive situations, they moved to a big city.
Housing is so absurdly expensive, none of that can happen anymore.
> I see a benefit having a nice city and somehow a high house price is what you pay to live in a nice city.
That is a new thing. For ages NYC had cheap dives artists could rent out, Seattle had basements musicians could rent out.
Heck for over a century NYC was a beacon around the world for people who wanted a better life, better opportunities. Now you'd better be in finance, tech, or already have a rent controlled unit.
People traveled across the country for the opportunities that San Francisco offered, a fresh start in a beautiful state.
That hope, that potential for a brighter future, is gone, largely because housing is so damn expensive.
Historically good cities have been affordable in America, but the problem with housing policies it is benefits current homeowners (such as myself!) to have housing stock stay small and limited.
While I wouldn't call it consumable, you do have to put money into it if you want to keep it working and in good state
But the house part is not an investment. It's the land that appreciates in value, the value isn't in a bunch of bricks and boards that sits, it's the location of the piece of land.
The most highly valued residential land only has high value because of supporting infrastructure and other people.
Be it incredible schools, or a high quality of life from density, or proximity to culture, value comes from the things people build around houses, not the houses themselves.
Proof of this is trivial, huge mansions in the middle of nowhere cost less than a studio apartment in a desirable area.
