3 ms·
> I mean, if you owned an apartment that could rent for $3000/mo, then keeping it empty is a direct reduction of your income by $3000/mo. Not realizing potenti
by phailhaus 8y ago
> I mean, if you owned an apartment that could rent for $3000/mo, then keeping it empty is a direct reduction of your income by $3000/mo.
Not realizing potential profit is not the same as losing money. If I own an apartment that costs $0 to maintain, then not renting out that apartment costs me nothing. It's not "cripplingly expensive" just because I _could_ rent it out for $3000/mo. It actually has zero impact on my income, and I could stay like that forever.
The cost of keeping an apartment empty is only the amount it costs to maintain it.
- NowThenGoodBad 8y agoThank you, this is one point people miss. The other is the value of the real estate and it's increase. Sure, you might not get that 36,000 a year but that is completely dwarfed by a 23% increase in the median home price, bringing it to $1.4 million[1]. You could rent for 10 years or just buy and sell it off a year or 2 later. So, while it is true that not renting would mean not getting that $3000 a month, it really comes out to chump change when you consider how the price of the property has rapidly risen.