I don’t buy what this article is selling. For the average person in the US you are not “free” from having to work until you have a 100% paid off home.
Older Americans are not leaving their paid off 3/2bed in the burbs in exchange for a condo that has rent costs go up 10% every year. Every single older person I know with a paid off house won’t move because it will be dramatically more expensive than what they pay now for way less housing.
Is renting stable in the United States? In the UK it's very precarious. The landlord can throw you out after a year with a couple of months' notice[1], so you might have to move every year. You don't want to be kicked out of your house and have to move when you're in your 70s or 80s. Plus the usual stuff like you cannot make any modifications, even paint a wall.
Plus, it is in no way tied to what the "average renter makes". In my state there are very few laws about rent increases. It can basically happen within 1 month of lease renewal IIRC. Which does not allow (most people) time to move and typically the surrounding rents have increased higher than the proposed increase so it often does not save money.
It really depends on the landlord or property management company involved though. Some do 5-10% increases every time they can because "that's the way it is"....some don't.
If I would have bought a house 6 years ago I would be spending ~$500/mo less than I am for the house I currently rent.
A couple of months' notice? That's an eternity compared to what we have here. Where I live in the US, tenants have very few rights. You can get one month notice. And you can't change anything at all. Even getting them to wire the electrical up to code is a crapshoot.
Most states only mandate a minimum of one month’s notice. Many landlords write a two month notice into the lease but this is mostly for their benefit so they have advance notice to find the next tenant and minimize vacancy.
Even in states with reasonable tenants rights, your lease will still have provisions like "If the cops come to your door, we can kick you out that very week"
One noise complaint? One false noise complaint? You're out.
For a while I thought owning a home wasn’t a great idea. Take on massive debt and sink massive amounts of time and money into home projects? No thanks.
But the trick I missed was we just don’t build housing in this country. Especially not affordable housing.
As long as this continues, and I don’t see any credible signs of abatement, owning a home is a good idea.
The trick is, or was, demographics. The boomers outvoted other groups, because they have larger numbers. Why build housing that diminishes the boomers (ie voters) property values? Also, why limit demand for the hoarded housing by enforcing immigration laws, not undercutting local labor with exploitative practices like h1b abuse, or by creating reasonable legislation like other nations have that protects real estate from foreign speculation oand domestic market manipulation by monopolistic and predatory corporations like blackrock and blackstone? Because the boomers had the numbers and the real estate, and democracy is mostly about winning elections.
There are some good rent vs own calculators out there. One thing that each person has to weigh is how much they value their time. Owning a home requires a certain amount of time that renters don’t commit. Not counting the considerable time in seeking out and buying a home or the preparation and process of selling a home, there’s an enormous amount time spent on maintenance, repair, renovation, etc. I’ve owned and rented and, for me, renting is a far superior lifestyle.
you can pay somebody else to do all that. that's no different from renting. what's different is that when you pay off a mortgage, you're buying yourself a house. when you pay off your landlord's mortgage, you're buying him a house.
This is oversimplifying and lazy thinking. The rent vs buy decision matters on _a lot_ more factors than what your framing includes:
- prevailing interest rates
- predicted future interest rates
- mortgage cost
- predicted house price appreciation
- predicted rent increase
- risk tolerance
- opportunity cost on passing on other investment options (e.g. stock market)
- liquidity
- how much you value your time
- how much you value the option of being able to up-and-go whenever you want
- property taxes
- property sales taxes
- and others
Seeing someone declare, with confidence, that one option is better than the other is a clear indication they've done close to no thinking about this decision.
Landlords don't typically operate under a loss. Rent will include all those costs plus some extra profit.
If there's a scenario where long-term renting is cheaper than buying, then you're lucky because you've got a landlord that did not adequately calculate what rent should be.
Honestly even if you’re trying to operate your rental property as a ‘non-profit’ you’re still going to wind up in trouble if you don’t ’over-charge’ to build up a repair / emergency fund for the property. Such is the cost of owning a house - unexpected expenses may cost tends of thousand dollars, and may not be possible to put off, even legally, nevermind ethically.
The cost of ‘what if the roof caved in tomorrow’ or ‘what if the furnace blew up’ should be built into the rent.
Hiring contractors to work on your house is also high cost, in money and stress.
You commonly end up paying someone a lot of money who then turns around and gets underpaid subcontractors, of dubious employment eligibility status, to do the actual work.
If you’re going through the trouble of owning a home, it makes sense to do as much work yourself as you can.
Your rent will go up 5% a year, every year, compounding to infinity.
That pays for a lot of contractor time.
Even if you have to take a line of credit against your house above your current loan amount, your equity is based on it's current value, and that's still a static price in the end.
That rent increases every single year, percentage based so it compounds, is asinine and literally only serves to make some holding company's line go up infinitely.
As long as the US has 30 year fixed rate loans, it will never be better to rent.
My rent did not go up this year, actually. And it did not go up one year during COVID either.
Plus, as a renter, I took the option of renting in a cheaper (unattractive) building with no amenities in an otherwise expensive neighborhood in a very expensive city, to be close to work.
If I wanted to buy a condo in the same neighborhood as I live in now, roughly the same layout, I’m looking at a monthly mortgage payment plus condo fees at least 75% more than my _total_ cost to rent where I am now, including utilities.
Is owning a home the financially responsible thing to do, generally? Yes. But owning a home is more money and more work than most people wondering about the decision realize, even if in the end you come out on top when you look at your bottom line.
I mean it just compounds until you die. At some point you decide that you're comfortable with whatever financial number you're going to end life with and instead of taking steps to further maximize it you just enjoy your life, and for some people that means renting an apartment on the beach.
One reason to own a house in many countries is that there are often large tax and inheritance benefits to doing so. E.g. old age pension benefits related to capital excluding your primary residence.
Owning a home wouldn't make much sense if we were building tons of affordable housing. However, with the constant artificial shortage created by cities, the rents and prices continue to rise ad infinitum.
This means, as a homeowner, I have a huge advantage over my friends who are renting and paying twice as much for a single bedroom apartment, even including maintenance costs. This will only get worse over time.
Hundred year events are now 10 year events. I'd much rather use a diverse portfolio to move outside of the scope of a disaster and chances are good that I will actually pay less than I should for the insurance component of rent because people are irrational. For raising rents it is similar, a city is usually getting too expensive all around for someone who doesn't need to live there.
My house represents less than 10% of my portfolio cost basis. It is now 25% of my total portfolio just because it has exploded in value over the past 5 years.
There are some retirees whose financial plan assumes that their house (the majority of their net worth) does not decrease in market value and that insurance will pay for hurricane damage. The recent condo market slump is the canary in the coal mine.
> financial plan assumes that their house (the majority of their net worth) does not decrease in market value
What is this plan? (Genuinely asking because it doesn't make sense to me.) If my (paid-off) house decreases in market value, I'm pretty sure I'm just happy because my property taxes are lower. It's not like I'm expecting to profit from its price going up, literally ever; I still need a place to live and if housing prices are going up everywhere, then selling my house means I now have the purchasing power to buy ~one house. At best, I have a larger credit amount in a HELOC but I still have to pay that off so it's not really a "financial plan".
No rent to pay. If needed sell the house to pay for medical care or nursing home care. If the price goes up sell it and move or Florida or a LCOL area.
Renting only makes sense on a fixed income if you can ensure your rent does not increase. If in 15 years your rent is double what it once was, you will probably not be able to afford it.
Sure. But you're paying property tax indirectly on rent any way. And, property tax is usually in the range of a few thousands per year versus rent being a few tens of thousands per year. An increase in tax may be weatherable whereas an increase in rent may not be. And many areas have laws where property tax for seniors is reduced or fixed
Every single cost mentioned in the article is passed to the renter in one way or another.
Also, property tax is pretty much the most unavoidable tax there is, and the most beneficial. It funds schools, parks, roads, police, garbage collection and much of the local infrastructure and essential services where I live.
I like having all those services, so I will gladly pay the tax, including any increases.
> Every single cost mentioned in the article is passed to the renter in one way or another.
That's not how markets work.
You can only charge in rent what the market will bear and if it's between renting a place out for a net loss of say -1500 or not renting it out and paying 3000 in expenses anyways some landlord is going to pick -1500 over -3000.
In general, being a landlord is a losing proposition. The whole reason renting is better than owning is because real estate appreciates less than the stock market. That's still the case if you buy the place and rent it out! You might make money but you're losing out on the opportunity cost of NVDA growth.
Now landlords could all gather together and decide that renting 150 units for 3000 generates more profit than renting 200 units for 2000 and yeah you'll end up with empty units. But its because the opportunity cost of the empty unit is in the landlord favor.
How are we on buy vs rent for like the third time this month?
There are a million calculators out there and I've linked 4 in a previous post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44794529). The math just works out in favor of renting because real estate doesn't appreciate as fast as other stuff.
There are of course no-monetary reasons to own a house.
As well as if you plug in an interest rate of say 2% it starts to look like owning is better than renting. But we're not in that environment for the next year or so.
For retirees, this should be a simple choice between:
Paying taxes and insurance on your current McMansion
Downsizing to pay less taxes and insurance
Renting
For someone who owns their home, I can't imagine that renting is the most cost effective option. The only way renting might be better/cheaper is if you're stuck with a sizeable mortgage that won't be paid off any time soon. But even in this case, moving to something more affordable would still likely beat renting. You'll still have to move in either case.
Downsizing paradoxically does not save as much money as you’d expect from the square footage difference. Because of the scarcity of cheap houses and alternatives like apartments, townhomes, duplexes and condos, the new home can be just as expensive. Mortgage rates going up and the high transaction costs in real estate eat up the cash difference.
I do buy it. There are a significant number of well-off retirees in my apartment complex. From the ones I've talked with, they love it. There's more to life than money, and many of them found their single family homes isolating and the stuff in them burdensome. There's a lot of mental energy that goes into taking care of a home, organizing all of the upkeep etc. They don't have to deal with any of that in an apartment. They don't have to vet repair companies or gardners or compare quotes. Living in our apartment complex they get to talk with a mix of people which keeps life interesting and alleviates loneliness, they get to walk to amenities like pools/gyms that their single family homes did not have, also they're closer to a major airport which makes those bucket list trips less burdensome AND they're closer to top hospitals for treatments. It's more expensive yes, but they're getting a value out of it that is worth the cost to them.
In their example case of someone with a 5 bedroom house, its obvious: sell it and move to a 1 or 2 bedroom condo. Renting isn't going to be optimal if her rent doubles every 10 years and she lives to 100.
The other option that boomer generation doesn't seem to be using as much is multi-generational homes. Give the house to your kid, you play grandma/grandpa and give them child care. The kid gets a cheap house and cheap childcare. You build multi-generational equity.
WSJ is shilling for companies like Blackrock and other private equity that wants to rent you housing at a markup compared to the ownership costs.
Of course they'll be pushing a narrative in which you shouldn't own your own home, the main source of financial security and peace of mind for when you are no longer able or willing to work a grueling 9-5 schedule.
Believe it or not, ownership costs aren't scary and, in most cases (unless you get fleeced by contractors) are very predictable and still cheaper than rent (especially in light of recent rent increases).
Personally, I wouldn't just treat this article with a grain of salt, I would disregard it entirely.
Home ownership costs are pretty low if you understand that everything is amortized. You buy a new roof every ~25 years, then you think of it as putting $50 a month into savings so you buy that roof when it comes up. Furnace in 20 years, hot water heater in 10. But instead people seem to want to wait until things blow up then treat it as a sudden large expense.
I'm trying to understand your point of view. Where is the extra money coming from to amortize the costs of major repair items? I think you are correct. It's just that nobody actually considers the amortization costs when calculating what they can afford.
The example of a 30 year roof replacement is great because it nicely aligns with a 30 year mortgage. So in reality, the cost of homeownership should be the monthly cost of servicing the mortgage payments PLUS the amortized cost of roof replacement. Your real estate agent has no reason to tell you that a 200k house is actually 240k. Because by the time you "own" the house, it is due for a 40k roof replacement. With the amortized cost maybe you can't actually afford the house.
- Mortgage monthly payment
- Amortized:
-- cost of roof replacement
-- cost of at least 2 refrigerators, more likely 4 refrigerators
-- cost of at least 1 new air conditioning system + at least 100% of the cost of a new system over the lifespan of repairs of the current system
-- Cost of at least 1 new garage door system
-- Cost of at least 4-5 toilet replacements by a plumber over 30 years
-- Cost of at least 1 whole home repainting, more likely 2 occurrences
-- Cost of wear and tear; hard to quantify but Likely very significant.
This is not even considering the amortized costs of personal time. The time spent servicing chores like grasscutting, pruning, weed pulling, touchup painting, repairs caused by wear and tear.
This is basically the concept of being "house poor" right? You have a house, you make payments on it, but you are poor and have no extra money after expenses. Maintaining a house costs money, and it should be accounted for. A Real Estate agent will at best take the inspection and suggest knocking a few thousand off the price for these new things. But their job is over once you buy it. The bank just wants you to make payments and doesn't really care if you put the house in disrepair.
Personally I think people should consider having a house repair savings account (or Money Market Fund or CD Account or whatever).
> But instead people seem to want to wait until things blow up then treat it as a sudden large expense.
It's fine to wait if you actually are saving money and putting it in the stock market. But USA in general has a savings problem, so of course it blows up on people.
> WSJ is shilling for companies like Blackrock and other private equity
95% of WSJ is shilling for corporations. They're the most out-of-touch rag to currently exist.
How many times have they blamed "Millennials" (While somehow still believing that 20-30 year olds are Millennials) for businesses failing, rather than examining how businesses have enshittified their product or simply failed to adapt to changing market demands?
I'm an atheist, but if there's a God then I am grateful to her for granting me the wisdom to pay off my house before retiring instead of investing that money in some horseshit.
Its a shelter from storms, both physically and metaphorically.
I don’t buy what this article is selling. For the average person in the US you are not “free” from having to work until you have a 100% paid off home.
Older Americans are not leaving their paid off 3/2bed in the burbs in exchange for a condo that has rent costs go up 10% every year. Every single older person I know with a paid off house won’t move because it will be dramatically more expensive than what they pay now for way less housing.
Is renting stable in the United States? In the UK it's very precarious. The landlord can throw you out after a year with a couple of months' notice[1], so you might have to move every year. You don't want to be kicked out of your house and have to move when you're in your 70s or 80s. Plus the usual stuff like you cannot make any modifications, even paint a wall.
[1] This might change to 4 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renters'_Rights_Bill
Not at all stable from my experience.
Plus, it is in no way tied to what the "average renter makes". In my state there are very few laws about rent increases. It can basically happen within 1 month of lease renewal IIRC. Which does not allow (most people) time to move and typically the surrounding rents have increased higher than the proposed increase so it often does not save money.
It really depends on the landlord or property management company involved though. Some do 5-10% increases every time they can because "that's the way it is"....some don't.
If I would have bought a house 6 years ago I would be spending ~$500/mo less than I am for the house I currently rent.
A couple of months' notice? That's an eternity compared to what we have here. Where I live in the US, tenants have very few rights. You can get one month notice. And you can't change anything at all. Even getting them to wire the electrical up to code is a crapshoot.
Most states only mandate a minimum of one month’s notice. Many landlords write a two month notice into the lease but this is mostly for their benefit so they have advance notice to find the next tenant and minimize vacancy.
Even in states with reasonable tenants rights, your lease will still have provisions like "If the cops come to your door, we can kick you out that very week"
One noise complaint? One false noise complaint? You're out.
For a while I thought owning a home wasn’t a great idea. Take on massive debt and sink massive amounts of time and money into home projects? No thanks.
But the trick I missed was we just don’t build housing in this country. Especially not affordable housing.
As long as this continues, and I don’t see any credible signs of abatement, owning a home is a good idea.
The trick in this country is that affordable housing is just housing that was built 50-80 years ago.
It's affordable because it has accumulated a lot of infrastructure debt, for example things like: insulation, roof, plumbing, electric. etc. etc.
The trick is, or was, demographics. The boomers outvoted other groups, because they have larger numbers. Why build housing that diminishes the boomers (ie voters) property values? Also, why limit demand for the hoarded housing by enforcing immigration laws, not undercutting local labor with exploitative practices like h1b abuse, or by creating reasonable legislation like other nations have that protects real estate from foreign speculation oand domestic market manipulation by monopolistic and predatory corporations like blackrock and blackstone? Because the boomers had the numbers and the real estate, and democracy is mostly about winning elections.
There are some good rent vs own calculators out there. One thing that each person has to weigh is how much they value their time. Owning a home requires a certain amount of time that renters don’t commit. Not counting the considerable time in seeking out and buying a home or the preparation and process of selling a home, there’s an enormous amount time spent on maintenance, repair, renovation, etc. I’ve owned and rented and, for me, renting is a far superior lifestyle.
you can pay somebody else to do all that. that's no different from renting. what's different is that when you pay off a mortgage, you're buying yourself a house. when you pay off your landlord's mortgage, you're buying him a house.
This is oversimplifying and lazy thinking. The rent vs buy decision matters on _a lot_ more factors than what your framing includes:
- prevailing interest rates
- predicted future interest rates
- mortgage cost
- predicted house price appreciation
- predicted rent increase
- risk tolerance
- opportunity cost on passing on other investment options (e.g. stock market)
- liquidity
- how much you value your time
- how much you value the option of being able to up-and-go whenever you want
- property taxes
- property sales taxes
- and others
Seeing someone declare, with confidence, that one option is better than the other is a clear indication they've done close to no thinking about this decision.
Landlords don't typically operate under a loss. Rent will include all those costs plus some extra profit.
If there's a scenario where long-term renting is cheaper than buying, then you're lucky because you've got a landlord that did not adequately calculate what rent should be.
Honestly even if you’re trying to operate your rental property as a ‘non-profit’ you’re still going to wind up in trouble if you don’t ’over-charge’ to build up a repair / emergency fund for the property. Such is the cost of owning a house - unexpected expenses may cost tends of thousand dollars, and may not be possible to put off, even legally, nevermind ethically.
The cost of ‘what if the roof caved in tomorrow’ or ‘what if the furnace blew up’ should be built into the rent.
Hiring contractors to work on your house is also high cost, in money and stress.
You commonly end up paying someone a lot of money who then turns around and gets underpaid subcontractors, of dubious employment eligibility status, to do the actual work.
If you’re going through the trouble of owning a home, it makes sense to do as much work yourself as you can.
Your rent will go up 5% a year, every year, compounding to infinity.
That pays for a lot of contractor time.
Even if you have to take a line of credit against your house above your current loan amount, your equity is based on it's current value, and that's still a static price in the end.
That rent increases every single year, percentage based so it compounds, is asinine and literally only serves to make some holding company's line go up infinitely.
As long as the US has 30 year fixed rate loans, it will never be better to rent.
My rent did not go up this year, actually. And it did not go up one year during COVID either.
Plus, as a renter, I took the option of renting in a cheaper (unattractive) building with no amenities in an otherwise expensive neighborhood in a very expensive city, to be close to work.
If I wanted to buy a condo in the same neighborhood as I live in now, roughly the same layout, I’m looking at a monthly mortgage payment plus condo fees at least 75% more than my _total_ cost to rent where I am now, including utilities.
Is owning a home the financially responsible thing to do, generally? Yes. But owning a home is more money and more work than most people wondering about the decision realize, even if in the end you come out on top when you look at your bottom line.
I mean it just compounds until you die. At some point you decide that you're comfortable with whatever financial number you're going to end life with and instead of taking steps to further maximize it you just enjoy your life, and for some people that means renting an apartment on the beach.
One reason to own a house in many countries is that there are often large tax and inheritance benefits to doing so. E.g. old age pension benefits related to capital excluding your primary residence.
Owning a home wouldn't make much sense if we were building tons of affordable housing. However, with the constant artificial shortage created by cities, the rents and prices continue to rise ad infinitum.
This means, as a homeowner, I have a huge advantage over my friends who are renting and paying twice as much for a single bedroom apartment, even including maintenance costs. This will only get worse over time.
Hundred year events are now 10 year events. I'd much rather use a diverse portfolio to move outside of the scope of a disaster and chances are good that I will actually pay less than I should for the insurance component of rent because people are irrational. For raising rents it is similar, a city is usually getting too expensive all around for someone who doesn't need to live there.
My house represents less than 10% of my portfolio cost basis. It is now 25% of my total portfolio just because it has exploded in value over the past 5 years.
Edit: In addition I get to live in it!
There are some retirees whose financial plan assumes that their house (the majority of their net worth) does not decrease in market value and that insurance will pay for hurricane damage. The recent condo market slump is the canary in the coal mine.
> financial plan assumes that their house (the majority of their net worth) does not decrease in market value
What is this plan? (Genuinely asking because it doesn't make sense to me.) If my (paid-off) house decreases in market value, I'm pretty sure I'm just happy because my property taxes are lower. It's not like I'm expecting to profit from its price going up, literally ever; I still need a place to live and if housing prices are going up everywhere, then selling my house means I now have the purchasing power to buy ~one house. At best, I have a larger credit amount in a HELOC but I still have to pay that off so it's not really a "financial plan".
No rent to pay. If needed sell the house to pay for medical care or nursing home care. If the price goes up sell it and move or Florida or a LCOL area.
Renting only makes sense on a fixed income if you can ensure your rent does not increase. If in 15 years your rent is double what it once was, you will probably not be able to afford it.
You're forgetting about property tax, another consideration on a fixed income. And of course it can increase.
Sure. But you're paying property tax indirectly on rent any way. And, property tax is usually in the range of a few thousands per year versus rent being a few tens of thousands per year. An increase in tax may be weatherable whereas an increase in rent may not be. And many areas have laws where property tax for seniors is reduced or fixed
My (not well worded) point is that home ownership can have variables as well, even if the mortgage is paid off.
Yes, some areas will freeze the tax level if you are over a certain age, but I'm sure not all areas do that.
and that will also be reflected in your rent.
Every single cost mentioned in the article is passed to the renter in one way or another.
Also, property tax is pretty much the most unavoidable tax there is, and the most beneficial. It funds schools, parks, roads, police, garbage collection and much of the local infrastructure and essential services where I live.
I like having all those services, so I will gladly pay the tax, including any increases.
> Every single cost mentioned in the article is passed to the renter in one way or another.
That's not how markets work.
You can only charge in rent what the market will bear and if it's between renting a place out for a net loss of say -1500 or not renting it out and paying 3000 in expenses anyways some landlord is going to pick -1500 over -3000.
In general, being a landlord is a losing proposition. The whole reason renting is better than owning is because real estate appreciates less than the stock market. That's still the case if you buy the place and rent it out! You might make money but you're losing out on the opportunity cost of NVDA growth.
Now landlords could all gather together and decide that renting 150 units for 3000 generates more profit than renting 200 units for 2000 and yeah you'll end up with empty units. But its because the opportunity cost of the empty unit is in the landlord favor.
How are we on buy vs rent for like the third time this month?
There are a million calculators out there and I've linked 4 in a previous post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44794529). The math just works out in favor of renting because real estate doesn't appreciate as fast as other stuff.
There are of course no-monetary reasons to own a house.
As well as if you plug in an interest rate of say 2% it starts to look like owning is better than renting. But we're not in that environment for the next year or so.
For retirees, this should be a simple choice between:
For someone who owns their home, I can't imagine that renting is the most cost effective option. The only way renting might be better/cheaper is if you're stuck with a sizeable mortgage that won't be paid off any time soon. But even in this case, moving to something more affordable would still likely beat renting. You'll still have to move in either case.Downsizing paradoxically does not save as much money as you’d expect from the square footage difference. Because of the scarcity of cheap houses and alternatives like apartments, townhomes, duplexes and condos, the new home can be just as expensive. Mortgage rates going up and the high transaction costs in real estate eat up the cash difference.
I also hope to pay off the house and be able to leave it to my kids at some point.
In other words, you're building equity.
Renting builds equity for someone else. And they have every incentive to take all they can get.
I do buy it. There are a significant number of well-off retirees in my apartment complex. From the ones I've talked with, they love it. There's more to life than money, and many of them found their single family homes isolating and the stuff in them burdensome. There's a lot of mental energy that goes into taking care of a home, organizing all of the upkeep etc. They don't have to deal with any of that in an apartment. They don't have to vet repair companies or gardners or compare quotes. Living in our apartment complex they get to talk with a mix of people which keeps life interesting and alleviates loneliness, they get to walk to amenities like pools/gyms that their single family homes did not have, also they're closer to a major airport which makes those bucket list trips less burdensome AND they're closer to top hospitals for treatments. It's more expensive yes, but they're getting a value out of it that is worth the cost to them.
In their example case of someone with a 5 bedroom house, its obvious: sell it and move to a 1 or 2 bedroom condo. Renting isn't going to be optimal if her rent doubles every 10 years and she lives to 100.
The other option that boomer generation doesn't seem to be using as much is multi-generational homes. Give the house to your kid, you play grandma/grandpa and give them child care. The kid gets a cheap house and cheap childcare. You build multi-generational equity.
WSJ is shilling for companies like Blackrock and other private equity that wants to rent you housing at a markup compared to the ownership costs.
Of course they'll be pushing a narrative in which you shouldn't own your own home, the main source of financial security and peace of mind for when you are no longer able or willing to work a grueling 9-5 schedule.
Believe it or not, ownership costs aren't scary and, in most cases (unless you get fleeced by contractors) are very predictable and still cheaper than rent (especially in light of recent rent increases).
Personally, I wouldn't just treat this article with a grain of salt, I would disregard it entirely.
Home ownership costs are pretty low if you understand that everything is amortized. You buy a new roof every ~25 years, then you think of it as putting $50 a month into savings so you buy that roof when it comes up. Furnace in 20 years, hot water heater in 10. But instead people seem to want to wait until things blow up then treat it as a sudden large expense.
I'm trying to understand your point of view. Where is the extra money coming from to amortize the costs of major repair items? I think you are correct. It's just that nobody actually considers the amortization costs when calculating what they can afford.
The example of a 30 year roof replacement is great because it nicely aligns with a 30 year mortgage. So in reality, the cost of homeownership should be the monthly cost of servicing the mortgage payments PLUS the amortized cost of roof replacement. Your real estate agent has no reason to tell you that a 200k house is actually 240k. Because by the time you "own" the house, it is due for a 40k roof replacement. With the amortized cost maybe you can't actually afford the house.
- Mortgage monthly payment - Amortized: -- cost of roof replacement -- cost of at least 2 refrigerators, more likely 4 refrigerators -- cost of at least 1 new air conditioning system + at least 100% of the cost of a new system over the lifespan of repairs of the current system -- Cost of at least 1 new garage door system -- Cost of at least 4-5 toilet replacements by a plumber over 30 years -- Cost of at least 1 whole home repainting, more likely 2 occurrences -- Cost of wear and tear; hard to quantify but Likely very significant.
This is not even considering the amortized costs of personal time. The time spent servicing chores like grasscutting, pruning, weed pulling, touchup painting, repairs caused by wear and tear.
This is basically the concept of being "house poor" right? You have a house, you make payments on it, but you are poor and have no extra money after expenses. Maintaining a house costs money, and it should be accounted for. A Real Estate agent will at best take the inspection and suggest knocking a few thousand off the price for these new things. But their job is over once you buy it. The bank just wants you to make payments and doesn't really care if you put the house in disrepair.
Personally I think people should consider having a house repair savings account (or Money Market Fund or CD Account or whatever).
> But instead people seem to want to wait until things blow up then treat it as a sudden large expense.
It's fine to wait if you actually are saving money and putting it in the stock market. But USA in general has a savings problem, so of course it blows up on people.
Incidentally, Blackrock doesn't buy homes. Other private equity, combined, own less than half a percent of single-family homes in the US.
> WSJ is shilling for companies like Blackrock and other private equity
95% of WSJ is shilling for corporations. They're the most out-of-touch rag to currently exist.
How many times have they blamed "Millennials" (While somehow still believing that 20-30 year olds are Millennials) for businesses failing, rather than examining how businesses have enshittified their product or simply failed to adapt to changing market demands?
I'm an atheist, but if there's a God then I am grateful to her for granting me the wisdom to pay off my house before retiring instead of investing that money in some horseshit.
Its a shelter from storms, both physically and metaphorically.
[dead]