4 ms·

I've had prolonged discussions about this elsewhere on HN, but I think if you're considering a house (or an apartment) to be an "investment opportunity", you've

I've had prolonged discussions about this elsewhere on HN, but I think if you're considering a house (or an apartment) to be an "investment opportunity", you've missed the point entirely. It's a home first and foremost, and a monetary asset second. If your model is 'grind your 20s-40s away living in a box and then move out' then I implore you to read my comment again.

tsunamifury 8y ago
I have a 1400 sqft apartment in Pacific Heights. It's hardly as bad as everyone wants to make it out to be. It's actually, by far, the nicest place I've ever lived. I think you really misunderstand the high quality of life can be in SF because of all the blogspam. Its hard at times, but it has significant rewards.
- esotericn 8y ago
  Quite possibly. I often wonder if London looks worse externally than it actually is (you can afford a house or apartment here if you have a professional job, it's just probably going to involve commuting and not be in a prestigious area). Of course, if you're something actually socially useful like a teacher or fireman, you're buggerino'd. I use the term 'house' out of laziness. It's more a commentary on the fact that a 30 year old renting is just incompatible with a decent life in the UK (outside of some secure older council tenancies) whether you live on the ground floor or the fifth floor. You'll probably have to move every year or two - it's not yours to decorate - the furniture might not be yours - it's not a home, it's a longer-term hotel. That might be different elsewhere.
  - tsunamifury 8y ago
    I mean, if I wasn't here, I'd be in Belgravia or Mayfair. London is an amazing place and now about 10% cheaper than SF. It has 2 out of the 5 FAANG companies, but the tech scene is still not in the top 5 IMO compared to NYC, SF, SEA, Singapore and Tokyo. I'd love for that to change...
timerol 8y ago
If a house is a home, I'd rather be homeless. I personally view a house as more of a shackle than a benefit. I enjoy moving every 2-5 years. I value novelty over routine. My first 12 years of life were in the same home, but other than that I've been moving around regularly. I am in my late 20s currently, and I'm open to a change in perspective. Maybe there's value in consistency that I will appreciate more at some point. But being told that I won't count as a senior professional until I care about buying property irks me.
- esotericn 8y ago
  Not my claim at all. My claim is that a senior professional (in _any_ field - not just a senior developer) doesn't care about the cost of rent. It includes your scenario - of course you should be able to rent and move about if you want to. If the cost of the rent is heavy on your mind, your position is not that of a senior professional. The title has become meaningless because it's effectively become an entry-level job. (Externally it looks like in SF, real entry-level jobs result in, well, homelessness or living in a van or something).
- Izkata 8y ago
  I don't see why any of that would have to change. You sell your home at the same time you buy the new one, and what you get from the sell goes towards the cost of the new home. Money-wise, you're no longer throwing it away on rent, but paying down a mortgage that eventually is paid off entirely. On top of that, you're also no longer racing against the end of the rent contract, and can wait a bit - or move earlier - to find a new place you really like. The turning point for me was, here in Chicago, when I was renting and my dad sent me some properties with the costs laid out: These places were significantly nicer, and the mortgage cost per month was ~60% what I was paying in rent.
  - timerol 8y ago
    Basically, because it's much easier (in time and money) to switch leases than it is to go through the hassle of buying and selling a house. There are some markets where owning is cheaper, and some markets where renting is cheaper.
wasdfff 8y ago
If you aren’t looking at a home as an investment opportunity, there’s no reason to look at a home. Why would you shackle yourself to something that you can’t easily get out of, takes time and money to maintain, can go away in an instant, and takes years to get any equity. If it’s not appreciating past what you pay in maintenance or what you might be paying in rent, why would you willingly waste your money? If you are going for the “American dream” of the 1950s, there’s no reason why you can’t have a stay at home wife, a boy and a girl, and a car in the garage while renting the home.

tsunamifury 8y ago

I have a 1400 sqft apartment in Pacific Heights. It's hardly as bad as everyone wants to make it out to be. It's actually, by far, the nicest place I've ever lived. I think you really misunderstand the high quality of life can be in SF because of all the blogspam. Its hard at times, but it has significant rewards.

esotericn 8y ago
Quite possibly. I often wonder if London looks worse externally than it actually is (you can afford a house or apartment here if you have a professional job, it's just probably going to involve commuting and not be in a prestigious area). Of course, if you're something actually socially useful like a teacher or fireman, you're buggerino'd. I use the term 'house' out of laziness. It's more a commentary on the fact that a 30 year old renting is just incompatible with a decent life in the UK (outside of some secure older council tenancies) whether you live on the ground floor or the fifth floor. You'll probably have to move every year or two - it's not yours to decorate - the furniture might not be yours - it's not a home, it's a longer-term hotel. That might be different elsewhere.
- tsunamifury 8y ago
  I mean, if I wasn't here, I'd be in Belgravia or Mayfair. London is an amazing place and now about 10% cheaper than SF. It has 2 out of the 5 FAANG companies, but the tech scene is still not in the top 5 IMO compared to NYC, SF, SEA, Singapore and Tokyo. I'd love for that to change...

timerol 8y ago

If a house is a home, I'd rather be homeless. I personally view a house as more of a shackle than a benefit. I enjoy moving every 2-5 years. I value novelty over routine. My first 12 years of life were in the same home, but other than that I've been moving around regularly. I am in my late 20s currently, and I'm open to a change in perspective. Maybe there's value in consistency that I will appreciate more at some point. But being told that I won't count as a senior professional until I care about buying property irks me.

esotericn 8y ago
Not my claim at all. My claim is that a senior professional (in _any_ field - not just a senior developer) doesn't care about the cost of rent. It includes your scenario - of course you should be able to rent and move about if you want to. If the cost of the rent is heavy on your mind, your position is not that of a senior professional. The title has become meaningless because it's effectively become an entry-level job. (Externally it looks like in SF, real entry-level jobs result in, well, homelessness or living in a van or something).
Izkata 8y ago
I don't see why any of that would have to change. You sell your home at the same time you buy the new one, and what you get from the sell goes towards the cost of the new home. Money-wise, you're no longer throwing it away on rent, but paying down a mortgage that eventually is paid off entirely. On top of that, you're also no longer racing against the end of the rent contract, and can wait a bit - or move earlier - to find a new place you really like. The turning point for me was, here in Chicago, when I was renting and my dad sent me some properties with the costs laid out: These places were significantly nicer, and the mortgage cost per month was ~60% what I was paying in rent.
- timerol 8y ago
  Basically, because it's much easier (in time and money) to switch leases than it is to go through the hassle of buying and selling a house. There are some markets where owning is cheaper, and some markets where renting is cheaper.

wasdfff 8y ago

If you aren’t looking at a home as an investment opportunity, there’s no reason to look at a home. Why would you shackle yourself to something that you can’t easily get out of, takes time and money to maintain, can go away in an instant, and takes years to get any equity. If it’s not appreciating past what you pay in maintenance or what you might be paying in rent, why would you willingly waste your money? If you are going for the “American dream” of the 1950s, there’s no reason why you can’t have a stay at home wife, a boy and a girl, and a car in the garage while renting the home.