• Jankatarch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Now those homes slowly rot and lose value and become dangereous to live in.

    As a result, rich people can’t run airbnbs. Capitalists are losing in long term for pride/greed/incompetence.

    At this rate they will require government subsidies to rebuild them later. All because those selfish low-to-upper middleclass people are refusing 50 year mortgages.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      the houses don’t lose value. the land goes up faster in value than the deprecation on the physical house.

      the price of the land is what matters way more than the house on it.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        To an extent. But I can buy a house for like 25% of the typical cost around here for a 1986 property versus a recent build, even with comparable location and land area.

        Varies by locale, in LA the value of structures are likely a rounding error, in the middle of nowhere, the structure is nearly everything.

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          yes, but most of the population lives in urban centers. they don’t live in the middle of no where. and it’s not viable for them to move there.

          there are houses 2 hours from my city that cost like 200K. i could easily by them. but I can’t live there because it would mean spending 4-5 hours in a car every day. there are no jobs in those towns. anything that’s an hours drive or less, is closer to a million dollars. which i can’t afford.