> The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go.
One of the major "lessons" of the famous book Rich Dad, Poor Dad was that wise wealthy people view housing as an asset and investment, whereas poor and middle class people merely view it as an expense. This thinking is now deeply ingrained in our culture.
Which is crazy. Wealthy people can afford to view housing as an asset because they are wealthy. Poor people can't afford property because they are poor. That's like saying feudal lords were wise for viewing grain as an asset and not an expense. Wild.
Clearly you need to play more civilization builder games. Grain is the most important asset, without it you can neither feed your people nor sell the excess to your starving neighbors for sweet gold coins.
I read that book a very long time ago and don't remember the part you reference, but from the perspective of someone who wants to live in a house, that house should be considered a liability, not an asset/investment.
But sure, owning housing that you don't intend to live in (and intend to rent out, or renovate and sell) is an investment.
The problem (at least in the US) is that everyone (of any economic means) seems to think of their primary home as an investment, which is in part why our housing market is so distorted. Everyone believes they're entitled to sell their house for significantly more than they paid for it, which is weird: land may increase in value for a variety of reasons, but houses just get older and crappier over time, and should only drop in value (with some bumps back up for major renovations).
I mean, it is an investment. However the success of that investment basically means depriving future generations of a home, which they are fine with doing, clearly.
One of the major "lessons" of the famous book Rich Dad, Poor Dad was that wise wealthy people view housing as an asset and investment, whereas poor and middle class people merely view it as an expense. This thinking is now deeply ingrained in our culture.