Thanks a plenty for help!!
"The average price of an acre of land in the United States is now 50 times what it was in 1970, and nearly 200 times what it was in 1920. The nation's population is projected to keep increasing, even as the amount of land remains constant. Therefore, people who are approaching retirement should invest heavily in real estate in order to ensure their financial security."
Author provides the premises that the price of the land has been increasing in the dollar value and the population will continue to grow. Using these links, he concludes that the people near their retirement should invest in real-estate to ensure their financial security. Though, at first, this argument looks very appealing, a close look and an in-depth analysis will show that it is not only unconvincing but also flawed.
Firstly, the author provides the ratio of the current land price to that of 1970 and of 1920. It is possible that there could have been periods where the land prices slumped quite a bit. Thus, author's premise gives false impression that the land prices are monotonically increasing. He needs to provide the price Vs. years graph for the period of 1920 to now.
Also, these numbers are disproportionately big. The purchasing power of the dollar has reduced over the years. The ratio of the prices should be recalculated by adjusting the value of the dollar.
The statement about projection of population growth is vague. The population growth can be in the range of 0.001% or can by 1%. What if majority of the population increases is in the cities and there's a huge migration from rural to urban areas. This will increase the demand for real estate in the cities and will diminish that in the rural areas. The growth in population projection needs to be qualified and the information about the population growth in different regions needs to be supplemented. Also, if the urban population starts to live in multi-story condos rather than in single-family homes then the number of people living per square acre of land will be more.
Finally, the author is suggesting that people approaching the retirement age invest in the real estate. This suggestion is totally meaningless. Nothing has been mentioned about the rate of price increase in the next few years. If there's a real estate crash similar to the one we observed in 2008-2009 in the near future, these people will lose their life-time savings in a matter of few days. It is easier for a younger professional to absorb that hit because his planned retirement is still pretty far away. Author needs to provide persuasive and believable proof that the land price is going to increase monotonically. An expert opinion about what portion of retirement portfolio these people should invest in the land will also be helpful.
In summary, the argument has a lot of weaknesses due to several assumptions and unqualified premises. Any support for the aforementioned objections through evidences or information will help bolster the argument.
"The average price of an acre of land in the United States is now 50 times what it was in 1970, and nearly 200 times what it was in 1920. The nation's population is projected to keep increasing, even as the amount of land remains constant. Therefore, people who are approaching retirement should invest heavily in real estate in order to ensure their financial security."
Author provides the premises that the price of the land has been increasing in the dollar value and the population will continue to grow. Using these links, he concludes that the people near their retirement should invest in real-estate to ensure their financial security. Though, at first, this argument looks very appealing, a close look and an in-depth analysis will show that it is not only unconvincing but also flawed.
Firstly, the author provides the ratio of the current land price to that of 1970 and of 1920. It is possible that there could have been periods where the land prices slumped quite a bit. Thus, author's premise gives false impression that the land prices are monotonically increasing. He needs to provide the price Vs. years graph for the period of 1920 to now.
Also, these numbers are disproportionately big. The purchasing power of the dollar has reduced over the years. The ratio of the prices should be recalculated by adjusting the value of the dollar.
The statement about projection of population growth is vague. The population growth can be in the range of 0.001% or can by 1%. What if majority of the population increases is in the cities and there's a huge migration from rural to urban areas. This will increase the demand for real estate in the cities and will diminish that in the rural areas. The growth in population projection needs to be qualified and the information about the population growth in different regions needs to be supplemented. Also, if the urban population starts to live in multi-story condos rather than in single-family homes then the number of people living per square acre of land will be more.
Finally, the author is suggesting that people approaching the retirement age invest in the real estate. This suggestion is totally meaningless. Nothing has been mentioned about the rate of price increase in the next few years. If there's a real estate crash similar to the one we observed in 2008-2009 in the near future, these people will lose their life-time savings in a matter of few days. It is easier for a younger professional to absorb that hit because his planned retirement is still pretty far away. Author needs to provide persuasive and believable proof that the land price is going to increase monotonically. An expert opinion about what portion of retirement portfolio these people should invest in the land will also be helpful.
In summary, the argument has a lot of weaknesses due to several assumptions and unqualified premises. Any support for the aforementioned objections through evidences or information will help bolster the argument.
