The "fuck you got mine" attitude so many homeowners have and deliberate supply restriction to increase property values makes it a smart investment on paper, at the cost of screwing everyone else coming after you.

Due to the massive influx of wealth caused by the pandemic. Median adult wealth is made from real estate, not stocks or a golden job.

https://www.pewresearch.org/2023/12/04/the-assets-households...

In fact, I feel everyone should own and anyone with two properties should be taxed heavily.

I'm not sure why it has to be that way. Build more houses.

The problem is “where”.

Building them in random lots in Florida or upstate New York is exactly what builders were doing in the runup to the financial crisis.

Building them in already-dense places is always tricky because of NIMBYism

then it wouldn't be "smartest investment"

I moved from an expensive real estate market to a less expensive one. That has nothing to do with appreciation — just equity.

Further, when I downsize — even in the same real estate market — that too is equity working in my favor independent of appreciation.

How is getting your own money back, many years later, without appreciation "equity working in [your] favor"?

Without the appreciation (and leverage multiplying that), buying housing would be nowhere near as good an investment. (As it stands today, it's phenomenal, of course.)

The alternative of course is giving your money to a landlord (and zero equity and zero money back). That is certainly less favorable?

I'm on team "own the home you live in if your circumstances allow", but if there was no appreciation, your equity isn't "working for you" in any way that I can detect/imagine.

The restrictions on supply are generally economical. Every day, building gets more expensive; labor and parts both cost more. That is going to cause the average home to cost more, even older ones, as you always have the option to get a new build at current rates or an older one for slightly cheaper.