for once i almost agree with this.<p>the central point is, roughly, the psuedo-paradox that we simultaneously say that your house is "your first and best investment" (implying it should appreciate faster than inflation) and "houses should be affordable, nor more than ~30% of your income" (which implies prices should stay ~flat - not a great investment)<p>and it <i>is true</i>. but i can think of two reasons that it's not as paradoxical (magical) as reported:<p>1. home <i>ownership</i> is subsidized unlike other investments. at least 15% capital gains is waived. over 10-20 years, it's worth the same as about 1% better rate of return (of some other hypothetical investment) which doesn't sound like much but is a bit difference when compounded. plus you can "live in it" in the meantime, which is a unique investment vehicle. this is worth a percent or so as well. when taking the tax and lack-of-needing-to-rent-something advantages into account, even if homes stay entirely flat to inflation, it's still a couple percent more beneficial to own a home vs. other investment options.<p>2. one expects that their earnings rise over their career, even relative to inflation. 30% of your income will then rise over time. "affordable" by this measure gets relatively easier over time, even wrt. inflation.<p>i think my conclusion is that a healthy housing market could be beneficial for building wealth and be a good investment while simultaneously staying "affordable" relative to wages. a healthy housing market should then stay close to or nor more than very slightly above real wage inflation to do this. but it's not impossible, nor unprecedented. this is just, currently, an overpriced, crappy market bubble.