5 ms·

There are a lot of short term periods where renting certainly makes more sense than buying. However over a lifetime it’s extremely hard to make the numbers work

There are a lot of short term periods where renting certainly makes more sense than buying. However over a lifetime it’s extremely hard to make the numbers work out if you only ever rent vs someone that conservatively owns. That of course also ignores all the non-financial benefits of owning. Many people just want to own their little part of the world and make it fit just for them—decor, style, renovation, landscaping, etc. and you just can’t get that from renting. Being a lifetime renter is just not a lifestyle most people want—-hence the aspirational nature of home ownership.

ghaff 8y ago
That's really the thing. At some point, many/most people want a place that's their own which they can modify to their liking. And many of them will want a house of the sort that's difficult to rent long-term. And eventually, when retiring or looking towards retirement, they're going to want to live somewhere that can't be sold out from under them or have rent raised to the point they can't afford to live there any longer. This IMO is the real rent/buy calculation. Do you value being able to pick up and move across the country without having to deal with owning a piece of property? Or do you want to own something that you can make your own with a fairly predictable monthly bill--except when something breaks?
- bojan 8y ago
  Something always breaks. But that doesn't mean it's not predictable. If you treat it as a monthly payment to the repairs fund, you are probably good.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Very large and unexpected things do happen. About 10 years ago, I ended up with about a $60K bill to correct a chimney that was basically collapsing and pulling the house down with it. But I agree with your general point. In the case of my paid-off house, I figure it's about [EDITED] $1K per month (counting some big projects) for upkeep (depending on how you count things that are nice-to-dos rather than strictly necessary) plus taxes and insurance. It is a very old house (early 1800s) so maintenance is probably a bit higher than a more modern house would be.
    - antisthenes 8y ago
      That should be covered by homeowners insurance, at least in part. That your old crumbling house was under-insured is no argument against homeownership in any way shape or form, just an unfortunate anecdote.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        Homeowners insurance mostly covers catastrophic events not deterioration that takes place over time. I’m not arguing against home ownership at all. Just that you need to save for maintenance and that you can get large unexpected bills.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        That kind of thing isn't covered by most insurance unless it is caused by a covered kind of event, and the additional cost of insurance to cover it would, of necessity, exceed the expected cost without insurance because insurance companies need to meet all covered costs, plus administration costs, plus turn a profit. Insurance makes certain costs more predictable at the cost of making them more expensive.
shusson 8y ago
> That of course also ignores all the non-financial benefits of owning. All I see is more maintenance :D
- bluGill 8y ago
  It is your personal point of view. Some people want their flower garden arranged their way. Some people want a shed to hold their antique car in. Some people want plastic pink flamingos in front of their window. Some people want ... On the other side some people want to move every year. Some people want nothing to do with maintenance. Some people need a bed and a shower and will not be home for anything else. The above are all valid choices. What makes sense for you does not have to make sense for somebody else.
  - shusson 8y ago
    I know and in case it wasn't clear, I was expressing my opinion.
usaar333 8y ago
It depends on the market. The SF Bay Area has many places where a case can be made that renting forever wins: https://medium.com/@usaar33/why-you-shouldnt-buy-a-home-in-the-bay-area-right-now-9eff37da8d6 https://medium.com/@usaar33/why-you-shouldnt-buy-a-home-in-t...

ghaff 8y ago

That's really the thing. At some point, many/most people want a place that's their own which they can modify to their liking. And many of them will want a house of the sort that's difficult to rent long-term. And eventually, when retiring or looking towards retirement, they're going to want to live somewhere that can't be sold out from under them or have rent raised to the point they can't afford to live there any longer. This IMO is the real rent/buy calculation. Do you value being able to pick up and move across the country without having to deal with owning a piece of property? Or do you want to own something that you can make your own with a fairly predictable monthly bill--except when something breaks?

bojan 8y ago
Something always breaks. But that doesn't mean it's not predictable. If you treat it as a monthly payment to the repairs fund, you are probably good.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Very large and unexpected things do happen. About 10 years ago, I ended up with about a $60K bill to correct a chimney that was basically collapsing and pulling the house down with it. But I agree with your general point. In the case of my paid-off house, I figure it's about [EDITED] $1K per month (counting some big projects) for upkeep (depending on how you count things that are nice-to-dos rather than strictly necessary) plus taxes and insurance. It is a very old house (early 1800s) so maintenance is probably a bit higher than a more modern house would be.
  - antisthenes 8y ago
    That should be covered by homeowners insurance, at least in part. That your old crumbling house was under-insured is no argument against homeownership in any way shape or form, just an unfortunate anecdote.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Homeowners insurance mostly covers catastrophic events not deterioration that takes place over time. I’m not arguing against home ownership at all. Just that you need to save for maintenance and that you can get large unexpected bills.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      That kind of thing isn't covered by most insurance unless it is caused by a covered kind of event, and the additional cost of insurance to cover it would, of necessity, exceed the expected cost without insurance because insurance companies need to meet all covered costs, plus administration costs, plus turn a profit. Insurance makes certain costs more predictable at the cost of making them more expensive.

shusson 8y ago

> That of course also ignores all the non-financial benefits of owning. All I see is more maintenance :D

bluGill 8y ago
It is your personal point of view. Some people want their flower garden arranged their way. Some people want a shed to hold their antique car in. Some people want plastic pink flamingos in front of their window. Some people want ... On the other side some people want to move every year. Some people want nothing to do with maintenance. Some people need a bed and a shower and will not be home for anything else. The above are all valid choices. What makes sense for you does not have to make sense for somebody else.
- shusson 8y ago
  I know and in case it wasn't clear, I was expressing my opinion.

usaar333 8y ago

It depends on the market. The SF Bay Area has many places where a case can be made that renting forever wins: https://medium.com/@usaar33/why-you-shouldnt-buy-a-home-in-the-bay-area-right-now-9eff37da8d6 https://medium.com/@usaar33/why-you-shouldnt-buy-a-home-in-t...