I was google searching for the article about how "you are born short one house" and this forum post was in the results.
Just an FYI to the mods -- It looks like that url was taken over (possibly a long time ago?) by hackers and it redirects you to malware. Might be a good idea to kill the link(s)?
I read it. It compares a house to gold. It says don't be excited if the value of your house rises. It says a house is not an asset.
What a croc. If you own a house in Sydney that is worth more than a million (half do), and you paid 500, you can sell it and use the 500 to buy a nice house somewhere else. You can also invest the 500 and retire somewhere else or even in Sydney being more efficent. Just because your house goes up does not mean you can't cash in on the increase and solve the housing problem some other way.
And a house isn't an asset? I rented mine out and live off the return pretty much. Tell my friends with nothing my house isn't an asset.
I would argue that zoning laws make the use of the adjective "naturally" a bit dubious here. For instance, in my locality, the smallest dwelling place which I could own and reign over as "head of household" (greatest level of dominance allowed me by the government) would have to have a footprint of at least 800 square ft. Therefore, if I simultaneously wished to maintain highest level of dominance and known maximized happiness occupation rate of 350 square ft./person, I would have to acquire 1.28 dependents.
7Wannabe5 wrote:I would argue that zoning laws make the use of the adjective "naturally" a bit dubious here. For instance, in my locality, the smallest dwelling place which I could own and reign over as "head of household" (greatest level of dominance allowed me by the government) would have to have a footprint of at least 800 square ft. Therefore, if I simultaneously wished to maintain highest level of dominance and known maximized happiness occupation rate of 350 square ft./person, I would have to acquire 1.28 dependents.
7Wannabe5 wrote:I would argue that zoning laws make the use of the adjective "naturally" a bit dubious here.
That's a really good point that hadn't occurred to me. Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years yet we've lived in houses only about 8,500-10,000 years. Begs the question, which is natural*?
*I am looking at campervans again and am trying to convince myself that nomadism is natural.. .. so if anyone wants to help with that, I'd be grateful.
@Did: I think the gold comparison is meant ironically. And the writer's point about rising prices assumes you want to stay (near) where you already are. Aren't rents in Sydney high too? It's true you can rent out your house but you still have to solve your naturally short housing position in some other way to do so.
Rising prices would seem to confirm one made the right choice in buying, since one might have been priced out of the neighborhood otherwise. I notice with increasing property taxes the local politicians are eager to make special exceptions for those who have owned 20+ years, i.e. seniors.
"The first man who enclosed a piece of land, who then came up with the idea of saying 'this is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him..."
.. so if anyone wants to help with that, I'd be grateful.