> The short answer is that a house is no longer a place to live, but an abstract financial asset.
This line of thinking is commonly repeated, but it fails to take into account the old “location, location, location” thing. If you bought a house that was once in the middle of farmland 30+ years ago but now that house is on (let’s say) two acres of land in the middle of a coveted suburb of a large city where the average house sits on .2 acres, why _wouldn’t_ that house (or more accurately, the land) have appreciated greatly in value?
A LOT of these houses that “boomers” bought were once out in the boonies, and now those places are desirable, developed areas.
This line of thinking is commonly repeated, but it fails to take into account the old “location, location, location” thing. If you bought a house that was once in the middle of farmland 30+ years ago but now that house is on (let’s say) two acres of land in the middle of a coveted suburb of a large city where the average house sits on .2 acres, why _wouldn’t_ that house (or more accurately, the land) have appreciated greatly in value?
A LOT of these houses that “boomers” bought were once out in the boonies, and now those places are desirable, developed areas.