• fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      But that’s something I don’t actually understand, since real estate would fall under the sunk cost fallacy. Ie, if you’ve invested in real estate, the cost is spent already, right? Whether someone comes in that building is irrelevant. The costs spent to maintain, heat, clean, power the buildings, on the other hand… It’s just not really obvious to me. Seems like fewer people would cost cheaper, no?

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you’re using that real estate as collateral for loans, it needs to maintain its value, or you’ll have to put up more collateral