> Of course that opens the question: why should real estate be a continually appreciating asset? There are other countries where it isn't.
Over time, real estate just is inflation - if it's more than inflation it eventually ends up infinitely expensive and unaffordable, if it's less than inflation it leads to cheap-as-free.
Arguably the second is more desirable from a human standpoint - but the first is where financialization leads us.
Re:The Cost of Safetyism
by throw0101c on Tuesday May 26, 2026 @02:45PM
(#48284056)
> I think the idea is that it locks them out of owning real estate.
How does urbanism lock people out of owning real estate?
Re:The Cost of Safetyism
by amanaplanacanal on Tuesday May 26, 2026 @04:08PM
(#48285299)
It doesn't have to, but at least where I live, urban means apartments, and the great majority of apartments are rentals, not for sale.
Re:The Cost of Safetyism
by throw0101c on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @07:29AM
(#48292587)
City land owners use their political power to block new construction to force real estate to appreciate in value.
This can be overridden but it's hard. Most cities with good economies have unaffordable real estate.
Of course that opens the question: why should real estate be a continually appreciating asset? There are other countries where it isn't.