[hypeatei]

> via capricious zoning policies designed specifically to make housing more expensive

This coincides with treating housing as an investment. Older generations (even Gen X) will flaunt how great it is that their house went up by X% in the last 5 years. It completely ignores that housing is meant to keep a roof over your head and not be treated as a spreadsheet line item in your portfolio.

[seanmcdirmid]

> Older generations (even Gen X) will flaunt how great it is that their house went up by X% in the last 5 years.

We really don't though. If we sell our house, we have to buy another, and they have risen in price also. Basically, buying into the home market allows you to just keep your head above water, you can't actually get rich unless you sell your house and move to a cheaper real estate market, or you decide to speculate in property outside of your primary residence.

[arcticbull]

Ah yes, I left that out but it's amazing how people continue to want housing to be both "affordable" and "a good investment" when those are fundamentally antithetical goals. A good investment gets less affordable over time.

[zamfi]

Maybe, but these are primarily antithetical when density doesn't increase.

It's totally possible to have housing be "affordable" (i.e., condos, apartments in multi-unit complexes) and "a good investment" -- buildable land close to amenities/jobs/etc. rises in value, and so selling to a developer who will add more units on that land can net the owner a solid profit.

The contradiction appears when you want the same units (i.e., SFHs in perpetuity) to be both affordable and appreciate in value.