Why I Don't Invest in Real Estate
Commenters use an essay on “why I don’t invest in real estate” as a springboard to debate whether housing is a sound investment, a basic social right, or an immoral asset class. Themes range from the impact of remote work, immigration, and climate risk on urban housing demand to whether landlord‑tenant structures and “home as piggy bank” thinking drive inequality, NIMBYism, and inflated prices. Many argue high costs are fundamentally a supply and policy problem—zoning, tax incentives, and regulation—while others emphasize the risks of concentrating wealth in a single, illiquid property versus renting and investing in diversified assets.
Remote work, cities, and location choice
- Many remote workers still prefer dense, amenity-rich areas (gyms, markets, schools, airports, nightlife), so remote work doesn’t automatically push people to low-demand land.
- Some report suburban “main streets” and cafes booming on weekdays, while traditional CBDs lose foot traffic.
- Remote work cuts both ways: big-city workers can move to cheaper towns, but people from smaller places may now move to “more exciting” cities.
- Others do move to rural areas thanks to remote work, showing heterogeneous responses.
Landlording, morality, and ownership rates
- A strong thread argues that the landlord–tenant system is morally corrosive: every investment property is a home not available to owner-occupiers; this entrenches “haves vs have-nots” and undermines social cohesion.
- Advocates here suggest targets like 90–95% owner-occupied housing, citing Singapore as a model and calling for social stigma on landlords, bans on large corporate and foreign owners, and heavy criticism of speculative property.
- Critics call this “collectivist” and economically illiterate, arguing landlords provide necessary housing, that high prices are mainly due to regulatory constraints on supply, and that envy is driving the hostility.
- Others take a middle view: rental housing is necessary (students, migrants, short-term residents), but tax policy and incentives in places like Australia have skewed markets toward speculative ownership and worsened inequality.
Affordability, NIMBYism, and generational tension
- Many younger/median earners feel shut out: pandemic-era price spikes, higher rates, and investor demand made once-affordable markets (Phoenix, South Florida, Oxbridge) unreachable.
- “Home as piggy bank/retirement plan” is blamed for NIMBYism and resistance to upzoning, as owners prioritize asset appreciation over affordability.
- Others say NIMBYs mainly want to preserve neighborhood character and avoid construction/disruption, not just protect prices.
Macro trends: demographics, migration, and climate
- Some expect lower birth rates to ease housing pressure; others note that immigration and global demand to live in “good cities” (Australia, EU hubs, US metros) may sustain high prices.
- Several argue the US could physically build enough housing but “won’t” due to politics and regulation.
- A minority predicts large regional divergences as climate risk and insurability reshape which locations boom or crater.
Real estate as investment vs shelter
- Some see property as a hedge against currency debasement and a way to lock in housing costs, even if appreciation slows.
- Others emphasize concentrated risk, mortgage interest, maintenance, taxes, and transaction costs, arguing that renting plus diversified financial investments (including REITs) can be superior.
- Individual experiences vary: some small landlords are exiting due to regulation and poor yields, while flippers in some EU markets report strong profits.