A service is still not nothing.
You're correct that having a roof over your head (even temporarily) is something tangible. However, you cannot resell most apartments (though you can sell the lease agreement). An apartment would be considered a service. On the other hand, a house is a tangible, durable product. If the house collapses through no fault of your own, insurance covers the loss but probably doesn't rebuild. If your apartment collapses through no fault of your own, you may have had renter's insurance but otherwise can consider it a complete loss.
The biggest pros for stand-alone houses include it being a tangible asset and possibly cheaper per square foot. Assuming the home is worth $200,000, your first payment has to beat 1/12th the interest and still pay into the principle. For example, a $200k mortgage at 6% means first payment is $1199.10. Every month, you pay 0.5% interest on the mortgage. That first month, $1000 of the payment is on interest and $199.10 is on the principle. The second month, $999 is on interest and $200.10 on the principle. The third month is $998 interest, $211.10 principle. By the 12th payment, the remaining principle is about $197,500. It doesn't seem like much (and it isn't), but the 360th payment is $6 interest and $1393.10 principle.
Above all, that's why you have to stay in a house for years or even decades for it to be a worthwhile investment. 12 months later, if housing values go up 10%, your $200k home ($2,500 in your pocket) is now worth $220k on the market, you can sell for $220k. $197,500 of that goes towards repaying the mortgage in full and the remainder--$22,500--goes into your pocket. What happened in the housing crisis is that people were hoping house values would continue to rise. They'd hop into adjustable-rate mortgages and bet that, in x months, the house will be worth more. Then not only do they pay similar to rent, but they'll make a lump sum at the end. The bet worked for years as urban homes especially skyrocketed in price, gaining 3%, 5%, 10%, or more each year. However, those house prices were only there because of demand; the actual value of the property didn't rise by 3%, 5%, 10%, etc.--it made smaller gains. That $200k house 3 years ago is worth $240k today according to the market, but is really worth more like $212k. Since the bubble wasn't just spread over a few years and year-to-year gains were pretty outrageous, (say, 3+5+10+8+5+8+10%) that house bought for $200k 7 years ago is now worth, on market, $320k. The actual value, however, was closer to $230k. Someone who bought the home for $320k loses $90k in equity practically overnight.
Anyways, I could go on and on about loan repayments and the like. MP-Ryan is correct, though. From a consumer standpoint, there's quite a few factors to consider if you're thinking of buying. One more thing to add, though...
7. Convenience: is the house closer/further from my and my spouse's workplaces? What's in the local neighborhood?
If you bought a house since the financial crisis or are paying for one from before the bubble expanded out of control, you're probably alright. While you owe that outrageous sum, the only thing you stand to lose is property of the home. In fact, I'd say your risk gets greater as time goes on, especially if you're laid off. If you paid $50k towards your mortgage principle, default, and are foreclosed upon, you lose that $50k. If you only paid $5k on the principle, you only stand to lose that relatively small sum. Remember that the bank owns the title to the house until you finish paying the principle.
That's also why it's so important to pay for loans as soon as possible, prioritizing the highest interest rates and then the highest sums. If you owe $10,000 on your credit card and have a 30% APR, you need to pay the credit card as soon as possible. Today, you owe $10k. If you can afford a $1k payment, you'll only owe $9,225. The second month, you'll owe $8430. The third, $7616. If you keep paying $1000/mo... the twelfth, you'll only need to pay $308 and then you'll owe nothing more. The credit card company cared more about the interest payment ($250/mo) and asked for $300 or $400 a month--which would draw out repaying for 5 years and let them collect that 30% APR as long as they can.
Anyways, if you had other debts at lower rates, you'd take that 12th month's $692 extra and put it towards a second debt that now has the highest interest--and keep doing putting your set "debts payment" against the highest interest rate. Instead of pocketing $1000 after paying that credit card, you should put that $1000 towards the mortgage. Going back to that $200k @ 6% fixed mortgage, you'd then add the $1,000 towards the mortgage in full; instead of $1200/mo, you'd put forth $2200 and your 30-year mortgage would be paid off in 10 years 2 months.
In the long term, I'd classify loans with collateral (real estate, vehicles, capital expenditure) as different from unsecured loans (health, education, furniture, etc.). The former isn't really debt as repayment ends in the collateral being seized and sold, while the latter will haunt you and make your life far more miserable.
Poll
