Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffbee | Hacker News Reader

I don't know but you can see that this misunderstanding is extremely widespread, bordering on universal. Name any American politician who does not agree with the idea that the way to help poor people is to get them to "build wealth" through homeownership, a scheme under which some future person must necessarily become impoverished.

View on HN

The building wealth part is because you have a non-depreciating asset worth something. For most people their only wealth is a retirement account, a meager savings, and the equity in their home.

And your home/land is an asset that provides utility that isn't spent by you using it.

That's kind of the crazy part though - how the hell does something you use and abuse every day, that you by definition leave out in the elements, not depreciate? Or at the very least, it is messed up that the depreciation is so minimal compared to the appreciation of the home (and not the land)

The land I can see. Land is in limited supply; AFAIK it's mostly just Hawai'i that's making more on occasion, and that's about it. But the actual building should depreciate.

The land is the asset, the bet is generally that the land will appreciate faster than the house will depreciate. This has generally been true in large metro areas and regional hubs, as net migration to those areas has been positive. That changed a bit during COVID with remote work, but most employers now seem to want at least partial physical presence.

You seem to assume that people living in their home will spend nothing on maintenance and upkeep. In my experience, the mortgage is about half the expense of owning a home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com