Can housing prices rise faster than incomes in the long run?
When over the long term housing costs in a area rise faster than wages rise, the demographic of who lives in the area changes. The size and income parameters change. A region that was full of young singles is now populated with couples with adult children, that means that the businesses and amenities have to change. At a national level it isn't sustainable unless other items change. The portion of monthly income that can be safely allocated to housing would have to change. One adjustment could be the the lengthening of home loan periods, thus dropping the monthly payment.  This has been seen with car loans, over the last few decades the length of loans has increased. In interesting related event could be the change in deduction of mortgage interest and property tax. If this was to change abruptly, there could be an abrupt change the estimated value of housing, because the calculus of affordability would change. In a strictly mathematical sense, no. Or rather, it depends what 'long run' means.  Say today the home average is $200K, and payment is $900/mo. The $900 today happens to be about 20% of the median US monthly income (which is approximately $54,000/yr). Housing rises 4%/yr, income 3%/yr. In 100 years (long enough?) the house costs $10M but incomes are 'only' $1.03M/yr, and the mortgage, even at the same rate is $45K/month, or, to be clear, it rose to 52% of monthly income.  My observation is that, long term, the median home costs what 25% of median income will support, in terms of the mortgage after downpayment. Long term. That means that if you graph this, you'll see trends above and below the long term line. You'll see a 25 year bubble form starting in the late 80's as rates dropped from near 18% to the Sub-4% in the early 00s. But once you normalize it to percent of income to pay the loan, much of the bubble is flattened out. At 18%, $1500/mo bought you a $100K mortgage, but at 3.5%, it bought $335K. This is in absolute dollars, wages also rose during that time. I am just clarifying how rates distort the long term trends and create the short term anomalies.
"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house.  It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless.  You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it.   The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will.  You'd need to hire a lawyer for that.  It may not be possible.   Abandon the house.  It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate.  Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house.  You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either.  Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford.  You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem.   Explore a reverse mortgage.  They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout.  Or maybe not.  It doesn't hurt to ask.   Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you.  Google gave some results on ""find property management company Philadelphia"" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff.  Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling.  A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period).  Pay the mortgage out of the rent.  If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it.   Note that the rent may not support the mortgage.  If not, then option four is not practical.  However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway.  Let the bank have it (option two).   If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income.  She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure.  A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation.   It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer.  Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive.  You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania.   It's currently winter.  Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing.  If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes.  Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first).  Note that the kind of heat matters.  You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity." Inflation refers to the money supply. Think of all money being air in a balloon. Inflation is what happens when you blow more air in the balloon. Deflation is what happens when you let air escape. Inflation may cause prices to go up. However there are many scenarios possible in which this does not happen. For example, at the same time of inflation, there might be unemployment, making consumers unable to pay higher prices. Or some important resource (oil) may go down in price (due to political reasons, war has ended etc), compensating for the money having less value.  Similarly, peoples wages will tend to rise over time. They have to, otherwise everyone would be earning less, due to inflation. However again there are many scenarios in which wages do not keep up with inflation, or rise much faster. In fact over the past 40 years or so, US wages have not been able to keep up with inflation, making the average worker 'poorer' than 40 years ago. At its core, inflation refers to the value of the money itself. As all values of other products, services, assets etc are expressed in terms of money which itself also changes value, this can quickly become very complex. Most countries calculate inflation by averaging the price change of a basket of goods that are supposed to represent the average Joe's spending pattern. However these methods are often criticized as they would be 'hiding' inflation. The hidden inflation may come back later to bite us. Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent:  If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people:  In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them. They can't keep rising with respect to people's income because eventually you run out of buyers. If there's roughly one house for every five people, then you'd better make sure that the price you set to sell your house is affordable to people in the upper fifth of income scales, or else you are mathematically guaranteed not to have any customers. Now, it's true that the price of particular houses can get much higher, but they tended to be higher in the first place. Housing isn't exactly an efficient market, but for the most part you have to pay for the house that you get, or else someone else will outbid you. An individual area might, temporarily, buck these trends because it suddenly becomes popular and there are a lot of extra buyers putting money on the table. In the long run, someone is going to build for those buyers, even if it means moving up the chain from enormous rural lots to suburban single-family homes to low-density garden apartments to residential towers. "I do not believe there is a strong correlation between CPI (Consumer Price Index) and housing value appreciation. Take, for example, New York City which has the highest CPI in the US.  A great deal of the CPI number is skewed by Manhattan.  One can live in Brooklyn or Queens and avoid some of NYC's high CPI.  I would say that housing appreciation occurs because of the human activity in the area.  That same human activity is what drives the CPI.  There are other contributing factors, like limits on economies of scale.  You simply cannot set down a Super Walmart in much of NYC, so goods are distributed over a larger number of stores.  (Sure, NYC is a port city, but the goods are distributed within the city by trucks.) The San Francisco Bay Area is another high CPI area in the US.  Here, as well, it is the location that draws people.  While NYC is mostly about economic activity, the SF Bay Area is a mix of the draw of a great location and the economic activity that occurs due to the large number of people living there.  I know of a house in Oakland that sold for approximately $350k, in 2004/05.  It was located not too far from the ""Killing Fields,"" as they were known locally.  It was not the worst neighborhood in Oakland, but it was not very far from it.  This was for a shabby, single-story unit which I believe had 5 (maybe 6) rooms.  That is a lot of money for a house that required a lot of attention and was in a bad neighborhood.  I have no idea how the housing market is after the housing bubble, but the higher value areas had the most room to fall and many of them fell hard. Ultimately, it is supply and demand that determines the CPI and housing values.  This supply and demand is determined by the human activity in the area and some practical considerations regarding the area. A final note: If we are talking about a primary residence, it should not necessarily be looked at as an investment.  First and foremost, it is a necessity.  Second, if you need to hire people for the maintenance and/or upgrades, that will eat into your gains.  Contractors are not cheap, especially where they are in high demand.  Finally, the tax incentive is actually not that great.  Sure, you take what you can get, but its impact is relatively marginal." Every payment you make on your house will already be increasing your equity in it.  For that reason alone, I'd recommend moving additional savings into other long-term funds. The article seems to indicate that executives are being forced by a younger work force to move their concentration of high end labor back towards cities. It's not exactly a concentration of wealth issue. It is if you want to buy a house. The prices would only rise proportionally if labor was the only cost at play and everyone made minimum wage.  If you look at major expenses such as rent, gas, utilities and food there is literally no reason to conclude their prices would change proportionally to minimum wage.