I wonder where in the world journalists get their data. I've lived in 10 houses over the past 30 years - all of them over 90 years old. The kind of homes that you think would need major renovations (and many have). I've kept pretty good records of what I have spent and I find this data really flawed. The most expensive rehab we did was a total gut (only the original walls remained) and it cost us $60k. Over the past 30 years I have spent less than $100k on maintenance as well as major improvements. In every case that I have made improvements, the homes' value has increased by more than 100% of my cost.Most people that own a home do most of the repair work themselves and often take on large projects as well. Is this journalist assuming that people are spending $300k to remodel their 1990's home? I suppose a few people are foolish enough to over improve a home, but I suspect that is a minority. Is he a total incompetent that he can't change a light bulb without calling an electrician or so lazy that he hires out maid service and lawn mowing. Part of home ownership is having a do-it-yourself attitude.
When journalist present flawed data, their whole story line is questionable. And today journalism has extremely low credibility with any story that deals with data (especially science).
2 comments:
Same kind of story like "Stay-at-home mom’s work worth $138095". Maybe both parents should stay at home in this case :-)
Or the RIAA "lost" sales numbers...
He mean your works is valuable too and should be included. Of course, but if was to pay somebody for it very few, if any, would do it.
Firts look at this I freaked... but then, after talking to some people I know and seeing what they have had done... I can see it... A single women I know spends about $3000 a year in home improvements... depending on the water heater, new hardwood floors, AC repairs, window replacement, the list goes on... her house has gained value... but not enough to off set interest... thats the real killer...
Post a Comment