House prices have become monetised over the last 1-2 decades as the options for good savings vehicles (store of value) immune from inflation, tax grabs, regulations (and sundry other rent-seeking) have diminished. As has collectable art, vintage vehicles, antiques, etc. The fiat mis-management has manifest itself in innumerable ways that will only become fully visible when looked back from a stable economy at some point in the future.
Exactly this. What always strikes me about the buy vs. rent discussion is those who say "always buy" are not taking into consideration the
reasons housing has done so well.
For the lower and middle classes housing has served 2 roles, it has acted as the ONLY inflation protected asset to counter the FED's printing press and has acted as the ONLY method to leverage and benefit from the FED's financialization wave to expand credit everywhere (which enabled housing to grow faster than inflation). Additionally, for the government housing has acted as a forced savings plan.
Whether or not housing (in general) will continue to be a smart investment, largely depends on your views regarding the government's ability to continue these trends. Personally I think the expansion of credit cycle is largely tapped out, and the FED will try to only use the printing press to counter the loss of credit growth. In this scenario renting and saving the extra monthly savings intelligently can do very well compared to leveraging 5x your net worth in a single asset class.
My father in law is a multi millionaire having bought primarily commercial real estate starting back then in LA. Now his kids get a handsome annuity check monthly. It's amazing how long these trends keep going.
Great for him, I hope he did it by understanding the new environment he was in and leveraging that to the hilt.
My worry is so many in the following generations assume these trends will go on forever and blindly leverage to the hilt in housing. Most of my peers have done so, they are so "house poor" with CA prices that they have zero ability to create savings outside of housing. This is bad IMHO.
Lastly, if you believe Bitcoin will succeed as an escape from centralized money, bringing to a dead stop central bank expansion of the money supply (no more printing and no more bailouts of leveraged banks), then housing in terms of price:income will NOT do well compared to today's valuations.
i agree. he bought these properties back in the 60's & 70's using only his cultural perspective that "property (RE) will always do well". auspiciously for him, that was the exact RIGHT time in US history to have this attitude.
interestingly, if Bitcoin only holds steady from here, i will have done better than him.
edit: for alot less work and headache. such is the power of the network effect of money.