8 ms·

Owning Your Own Home Is Even More Stupid Than Running Your Own Servers

13 points by joelx 7y ago

Thorentis 7y ago
I recognise the problems with home ownership, and agree that affordable rent may even be the answer for some people that don't want that responsibility, but the solution of "10 storey buildings" just isn't the answer. Case in point: the Sydney apartment building disaster. Multiple apartment buildings with problems, losing tons of money by having to move out of cracking/leaking/structurally unsound buildings. And almost no support or compensation coming their way. Unfortunately, strata based housing many times results in developers extorting "owners" with fees, little to no maintenance (or just the bare minimum), cutting corners on building, and so on. At least with home ownership you know exactly what you need to do, and if it doesn't get done then it's your own fault. Even renting a house is better, because you can very clearly see if things are wrong. An apartment building is harder to get a clear overall picture of. Walls sinking? Foundations cracking? Ceilings dipping? Roof leaking? You can usually only see some of these issues in any given apartment depending on what floor you're on, how big your apartment is, etc.
- maxander 7y ago
  If you you want “affordable rents,” you have two options; high density or long commutes. And high density means large buildings. There’s just geometrically no way to supply a SF/NYC/Boston level city primarily through detached homes. It’s on cities to solve the problems you describe, usually through housing inspection and tenant rights law.
- nikita2206 7y ago
  All sorts of market inequalities including when developers cut corners can be fixed by proper regulation and oversight. At the end of the day the cooperatives of people who want to build a few-story home together and they hire a managing company that will direct the building but they will be able to oversee the books should be the winning strategy imo. It just takes more involment from each tenant during construction but ultimately that’s the only way you can be sure that something is done the way you want it - oversee it yourself. It is a burden obviously but given the stakes I think it’s justifiable.
peapicker 7y ago
Not buying it. I’m on the backend. My house is paid off in 18 months. Even with my average 5-7k per year of maintenance I’m paying a lot less than a crappy two bedroom rental in my top20 metro area on the US and my property is already worth triple+ my initial cost for a reasonable 1800 sq ft plus basement. I did get a place that was waaaay less than banks wanted to qualify me for because I understand the cost of maintenance. A pool would be an albatross around my neck for instance - never would buy a place with one bc of the maintenance.
ksksksss 7y ago
While owning is always combined with upkeep, renting is always taking money out of your pocket and putting it into somebody else's. At least in this economy (Western Europe) it's not exactly considered wise to never buy property, and makes sense in the long term for very few. And to further the analogy of server's, pay a worker to do the upkeep if you can and would rather spend your time otherwise. There are people who'll take care of your bugs, crumbling infrastructure and beautification needs for a small token. This really reads a rather petty complaint.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "renting is always taking money out of your pocket and putting it into somebody else's." If you're paying for a mortgage, then what difference does it make if it's your mortgage or your landlord's mortgage? The obvious difference it makes is whether you're on the hook if the value of the property goes down, which is an argument against owning. Owning makes sense if you can avoid borrowing, but that means saving for many years and spending a fraction of what most people do.
prepend 7y ago
This person has owned a home for a year. Ve has experience and obviously an authority on this subject. Seriously though, servers do not appreciate in value. If they did and were scarce it would make a lot more sense to run than cloud out. There are downsides to home ownership and significant risks, but I think it’s the most tangible path to wealth for the middle class. Not everyone is fit for home ownership as they move or value flexibility, but for those who can plan and own a home in thirty years it zeros out for the costs of maintenance, taxes, etc. It’s not quite like getting a refund check back for thirty years of rent, but it’s similar.
- joelx 7y ago
  The fact that homes appreciate and value is a bug in our system. If we allowed homes to be built freely and with less regulation, then old homes that actually decline in value compared to new homes.
  - PascLeRasc 7y ago
    I agreed with your article and other comments here, but this is a bad take. There's no need for senseless tearing down and rebuilding, old homes are perfectly fine and often better-built than modern ones. Take a look at the mid-rise apartment building, I'm sure you have several wherever you live: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri...
    - joelx 7y ago
      Good point, I didn't think this comment through as well as I should have.
  - prepend 7y ago
    Perhaps, but homes are built on land. We’re not making more land and it will always appreciate. Also building materials and labor increase in price with inflation so homes will increase in absolute price even with proper regulation (which no country has ever succeeded in accomplishing).
waiseristy 7y ago
So, some ants, a money pit, and the HVAC acting up. Sounds like the author just doesn't like regular maintenance of a house? I wonder if they also get angry with their car. You have to change the oil twice a year! What an inconvenience
- The_Amp_Walrus 7y ago
  You can also make the same argument for owning a car as well. After registration, mandatory insurance, petrol and maintenance, it's not clear that owning a car is a financially sound decision for me, personally. I've run the numbers before and the cost of owning is pretty close to just catching an Uber every time I would otherwise drive, given I live an hour's walk from my city's center. The only big benefit I get out of it is that I can drop everything and go on a camping / skiing trip several times a year. I certainly wouldn't buy a car now if I didn't own one, and if I could easily rent a car for outdoor trips, then I wouldn't have a reason to own one at all.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    The problem with reducing everything to whether it's a 'financially sound' decision is that the ultimate endpoint of that is that you live in 5sqm in SF/NYC/London/wherever, or a van in the Google car park, and stash it all away until you're 40 or whatever, because that's the Paperclip Maximizer optimal-strategy. Ultimately it doesn't matter _that much_. You're going to get old, you're going to lose your health eventually, and then you're gonna die. I used to think that way, the effects were long-term great (I have a good amount of savings now), but I recognise that there really was no need to be quite so extreme about it.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      "Ultimately it doesn't matter _that much_. You're going to get old, you're going to lose your health eventually, and then you're gonna die." Sure, but probably not at 40, so you've kind of refuted yourself. Speaking as someone who flipped from renter to homeowner at 42. Saving up for 20 years in an index fund and then buying as much house as you can pay for in cash seems like a reasonable plan to me, if you make the sort of money people on HN claim to.
gaspoweredcat 7y ago
my big issue is that it ties you to somewhere, if i want to leave where i am i can just give my landlord the appropriate notice and leave, if i owned where i live i then have to find someone to buy my house before i can leave, which could take weeks or even months the problem with your "build more homes to crash the price 80%" is its a great idea for those who dont have houses already, but for those that do it means enormous losses on their original investments, now do you think the people making the decisions on those sorts of things rent or own? something tells me they own and wouldnt be too keen on losing 80% of their investment thats also why it does work in japan, unlike here property is not an investment its something to live/work in for as long as it lasts, as such prices only go one way, down, over the course of 20-30 years the value of most japanese houses falls to zero and they are knocked down and rebuilt
- flukus 7y ago
  > my big issue is that it ties you to somewhere This is also a benefit depending on your perspective. It makes you more a part of the community because your long term best interests align. It's easier to keep long term friends when seeing each other doesn't become an inconvenience. I know some retired people that have lived in my (gentrifying) area most of their lives but are now struggling to keep up with ever increasing rents, to them being tied somewhere by owning property would be a godsend. > the problem with your "build more homes to crash the price 80%" is its a great idea for those who dont have houses already, but for those that do it means enormous losses on their original investments Most home owners treat their property as a home first and an investment second, if at all. Even if it's used as an investment it will usually be invested in their next home. Getting rid of property speculators would be great though. > thats also why it does work in japan Japan seems to have some issues (Hikikomori) that may be exasperated by this lack of permanence. Paying ever increasing rent and/or moving when I'm retired instead of $0 to live out my days in peace doesn't sound appealing.
  - gaspoweredcat 7y ago
    its all personal preference at the end of the day, i can honestly say ive never been part of a "community" hell its rare ive even known my next door neighbours names nor do i have a desire to. as for long term friend ive known most of mine for upwards of 2 decades, we havent lost touch so far and i dont see it happening in future i also have no plans to retire, if i stop working ill become incredibly bored incredibly fast, im sure its a goal for those with partners etc or things theyve held off doing but not me, if ive wanted to do something i generally do it there and then and my emotional and social issues mean that i have no interest in having a family or partner, i have my hobbies and my work which is pretty much all i need while not to the extremes of japans hikikomori we have a significant number of people in their 20s and 30s still living with their parents here, but these arent jobless shut-ins theyre just regular people, the reasons for it are many, some simply cant afford to live alone and why rent a room in a shared house with a bunch of strangers when you can rent one with people you know? i suspect another reason is that single accommodation like one bed flats etc is not that common here so if you do rent alone youre likely renting a 2 bed house, which can feel rather dull and empty if youre living alone im also aware that i have a serious lack of responsibility, were i to own a place id have access to significant lines of credit and id end up doing something stupid and get it repossessed.
parski 7y ago
I'm paying less for my 240m² house that I own than I did when I when I was renting a 70m² apartment a year ago. I live in a better neighborhood with three times the space and with every monthly payment I'm building my net worth. I take ownership of my home and learn skills to maintain and repair it. I run around naked with really loud music at night and it's nobody's business but mine. Feels great. Also free parking and I'm growing food that I eat. Neat. There is no doubt that owning my home is a lot better for me than renting, both economically and living standard wise. As for the server: excluding third party physical access is a major security feature.
- joelx 7y ago
  I should have clarified that this applies to the US.
mothsonasloth 7y ago
This article illustrates a cultural problem that is emerging especially with the 20-30s generation. You can try blaming it on baby boomers, high living costs, lifestyle choices, avocados etc. They don't care about ownership or property and instead want to consume everything as a service right away for convenience. This might be a one off service or something they are tied into with some contract. I'm 31 and my peers either can't or won't buy property, cars, phones, kitchen utensils or other assets. It's like feudalism 2.0, there's a whole bunch of people who own nothing now and are tied into contracts which can be quite onerous. Serfdom 2.0 for the middle classes. Ready to be milked by the people who own these services. Another example is the music market. It's become intangible with Spotify etc. I still keep digital copies of music and host a Plex server which I control. Noone can deny me access that way. I still have CDs if something really goes wrong. It's almost like it's cool to be a consumer of Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Lime, DriveNow instead of painstakingly saving for that second hand car or holiday at that hotel resort.
- joelx 7y ago
  It's far more efficient to share resources then to buy. That is why Uber makes sense. If you own your own car, it might get used on average 40 minutes per day. With Uber that resource is used at least 10 hours each day. By the way, I think baby boomers are the worst generation in history. They're incredibly selfish and have caused huge externalities (climate change, national debt, global destabilization). The greed of the baby boomers has meant that the average standard of living and income has dropped for those coming behind them. We should eliminate benefits these people voted for themselves including Social Security and Medicare. No one else will get them later.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "It's far more efficient to share resources then to buy" If it was more efficient, it wouldn't be more expensive. If it wasn't more expensive, there wouldn't be all these huge startups.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
stzup7 7y ago
Owning your home is an long term insurance. If your source of income dries up, you'll still have a home.
- marssaxman 7y ago
  How's that going to work? You still have to pay your mortgage and property tax.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Well, if your mortgage is paid off or you saved for 20 or 30 years in the first place.
mister_hn 7y ago
As millennial and house owner in Berlin, I totally disagree with those statements. If you try to rent an apartment as a family of 4 (say, min. 85-90 m²), you have to pay at least something not less than 900€, excluding annual costs review, electricity, internet and so on. On top of that, there's the "incremental-steps", set usually on 3%. Sure, owning a house is not easy and requires efforts, but in the era of 0% interests or negative interests, buying a house in a Big City IMHO represents a far better investment than keeping money in a bank account or giving away for rental. A House can also work as insurance: if for some reasons you are facing economic difficulties, you can think of selling it and moving in a smaller apartment. As renter, what happens if you're already in difficulty and can't afford to pay the actual rent? I hate much everything of the "rental" services: you can access something but you can't own it. What happens if in 10 years I want exactly access that thing again? Will it be there? I'm sure it won't and there are tons of examples already (See: Disney content flying away from Netflix, Music disappearing from Spotify due to copyright/labels, Games not available anymore on Steam due geolocalization, etc. etc.)
- milkytron 7y ago
  >I hate much everything of the "rental" services: you can access something but you can't own it. Universities in the US are doing this with course material now. I had to pay for a subscription service to access my assignments, so that my professors didn't have to review anything. I had to pay for the service to get credit for that portion of the class, and then all my work in that service vanished after the semester ended. No more access to the work I had done despite having classes the next semester that I would need that work to reference. The professor didn't pay a dime, and 100 students had to pay the cost so that the professor didn't have to review our work. Involuntary consumerism at its finest. I started a petition, and tried arguing with the admins of the school to see if we could have these services banned or at least paid for by the professor. They asked "How is this different than buying a book you need?" Answer is obvious, books don't disappear after the semester, they can be found in the library if you can't afford them, and they don't do the professors' job. They asked "Well you can afford tuition, can't you afford the subscription?" No, I can't afford tuition, now you want more? At the end of the day, I went back and forth with them, and they wouldn't budge. And I could tell it was really tearing their moral fabric, but no one in power wanted to budge because $$$$$
esotericn 7y ago
Hi Joel. I'm your landlord, and I'm selling the house. You know, cause like, it's mine. I want you out next month. Yeah, I'll take the stability of buying, thanks. The server comparison is disingenuous because migrating data is essentially trivial and has almost no emotional impact compared to moving home. I mean, it'd be brilliant if I could rsync my cabinets.
jd751 7y ago
10 stories apartments. Instead of visiting Tokyo go visit Moscow or any capital from the previous eastern european communist countries. See how that worked out for the rich and poor. You compare housing with data. Devaluation of humans to the point where you believe they can be compared to just 0s and 1s is whats wrong with your article. But i guess you still think this is just a statistic. Someone else did too.
leommoore 7y ago
The essential difference is that the location of your server matters a lot less than where you are located. Maybe you have a job that you can work remotely and never have to travel but there is more to life than work. Your neighbours, friends, kids, schools and your favourite coffee shop are part of who you are.

13 points by joelx 7y ago

I recognise the problems with home ownership, and agree that affordable rent may even be the answer for some people that don't want that responsibility, but the solution of "10 storey buildings" just isn't the answer. Case in point: the Sydney apartment building disaster. Multiple apartment buildings with problems, losing tons of money by having to move out of cracking/leaking/structurally unsound buildings. And almost no support or compensation coming their way. Unfortunately, strata based housing many times results in developers extorting "owners" with fees, little to no maintenance (or just the bare minimum), cutting corners on building, and so on. At least with home ownership you know exactly what you need to do, and if it doesn't get done then it's your own fault. Even renting a house is better, because you can very clearly see if things are wrong. An apartment building is harder to get a clear overall picture of. Walls sinking? Foundations cracking? Ceilings dipping? Roof leaking? You can usually only see some of these issues in any given apartment depending on what floor you're on, how big your apartment is, etc.

maxander 7y ago
If you you want “affordable rents,” you have two options; high density or long commutes. And high density means large buildings. There’s just geometrically no way to supply a SF/NYC/Boston level city primarily through detached homes. It’s on cities to solve the problems you describe, usually through housing inspection and tenant rights law.
nikita2206 7y ago
All sorts of market inequalities including when developers cut corners can be fixed by proper regulation and oversight. At the end of the day the cooperatives of people who want to build a few-story home together and they hire a managing company that will direct the building but they will be able to oversee the books should be the winning strategy imo. It just takes more involment from each tenant during construction but ultimately that’s the only way you can be sure that something is done the way you want it - oversee it yourself. It is a burden obviously but given the stakes I think it’s justifiable.

peapicker 7y ago

Not buying it. I’m on the backend. My house is paid off in 18 months. Even with my average 5-7k per year of maintenance I’m paying a lot less than a crappy two bedroom rental in my top20 metro area on the US and my property is already worth triple+ my initial cost for a reasonable 1800 sq ft plus basement. I did get a place that was waaaay less than banks wanted to qualify me for because I understand the cost of maintenance. A pool would be an albatross around my neck for instance - never would buy a place with one bc of the maintenance.

ksksksss 7y ago

While owning is always combined with upkeep, renting is always taking money out of your pocket and putting it into somebody else's. At least in this economy (Western Europe) it's not exactly considered wise to never buy property, and makes sense in the long term for very few. And to further the analogy of server's, pay a worker to do the upkeep if you can and would rather spend your time otherwise. There are people who'll take care of your bugs, crumbling infrastructure and beautification needs for a small token. This really reads a rather petty complaint.

perl4ever 7y ago
"renting is always taking money out of your pocket and putting it into somebody else's." If you're paying for a mortgage, then what difference does it make if it's your mortgage or your landlord's mortgage? The obvious difference it makes is whether you're on the hook if the value of the property goes down, which is an argument against owning. Owning makes sense if you can avoid borrowing, but that means saving for many years and spending a fraction of what most people do.

prepend 7y ago

This person has owned a home for a year. Ve has experience and obviously an authority on this subject. Seriously though, servers do not appreciate in value. If they did and were scarce it would make a lot more sense to run than cloud out. There are downsides to home ownership and significant risks, but I think it’s the most tangible path to wealth for the middle class. Not everyone is fit for home ownership as they move or value flexibility, but for those who can plan and own a home in thirty years it zeros out for the costs of maintenance, taxes, etc. It’s not quite like getting a refund check back for thirty years of rent, but it’s similar.

joelx 7y ago
The fact that homes appreciate and value is a bug in our system. If we allowed homes to be built freely and with less regulation, then old homes that actually decline in value compared to new homes.
- PascLeRasc 7y ago
  I agreed with your article and other comments here, but this is a bad take. There's no need for senseless tearing down and rebuilding, old homes are perfectly fine and often better-built than modern ones. Take a look at the mid-rise apartment building, I'm sure you have several wherever you live: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri...
  - joelx 7y ago
    Good point, I didn't think this comment through as well as I should have.
- prepend 7y ago
  Perhaps, but homes are built on land. We’re not making more land and it will always appreciate. Also building materials and labor increase in price with inflation so homes will increase in absolute price even with proper regulation (which no country has ever succeeded in accomplishing).

waiseristy 7y ago

So, some ants, a money pit, and the HVAC acting up. Sounds like the author just doesn't like regular maintenance of a house? I wonder if they also get angry with their car. You have to change the oil twice a year! What an inconvenience

The_Amp_Walrus 7y ago
You can also make the same argument for owning a car as well. After registration, mandatory insurance, petrol and maintenance, it's not clear that owning a car is a financially sound decision for me, personally. I've run the numbers before and the cost of owning is pretty close to just catching an Uber every time I would otherwise drive, given I live an hour's walk from my city's center. The only big benefit I get out of it is that I can drop everything and go on a camping / skiing trip several times a year. I certainly wouldn't buy a car now if I didn't own one, and if I could easily rent a car for outdoor trips, then I wouldn't have a reason to own one at all.
- esotericn 7y ago
  The problem with reducing everything to whether it's a 'financially sound' decision is that the ultimate endpoint of that is that you live in 5sqm in SF/NYC/London/wherever, or a van in the Google car park, and stash it all away until you're 40 or whatever, because that's the Paperclip Maximizer optimal-strategy. Ultimately it doesn't matter _that much_. You're going to get old, you're going to lose your health eventually, and then you're gonna die. I used to think that way, the effects were long-term great (I have a good amount of savings now), but I recognise that there really was no need to be quite so extreme about it.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "Ultimately it doesn't matter _that much_. You're going to get old, you're going to lose your health eventually, and then you're gonna die." Sure, but probably not at 40, so you've kind of refuted yourself. Speaking as someone who flipped from renter to homeowner at 42. Saving up for 20 years in an index fund and then buying as much house as you can pay for in cash seems like a reasonable plan to me, if you make the sort of money people on HN claim to.

gaspoweredcat 7y ago

my big issue is that it ties you to somewhere, if i want to leave where i am i can just give my landlord the appropriate notice and leave, if i owned where i live i then have to find someone to buy my house before i can leave, which could take weeks or even months the problem with your "build more homes to crash the price 80%" is its a great idea for those who dont have houses already, but for those that do it means enormous losses on their original investments, now do you think the people making the decisions on those sorts of things rent or own? something tells me they own and wouldnt be too keen on losing 80% of their investment thats also why it does work in japan, unlike here property is not an investment its something to live/work in for as long as it lasts, as such prices only go one way, down, over the course of 20-30 years the value of most japanese houses falls to zero and they are knocked down and rebuilt

flukus 7y ago
> my big issue is that it ties you to somewhere This is also a benefit depending on your perspective. It makes you more a part of the community because your long term best interests align. It's easier to keep long term friends when seeing each other doesn't become an inconvenience. I know some retired people that have lived in my (gentrifying) area most of their lives but are now struggling to keep up with ever increasing rents, to them being tied somewhere by owning property would be a godsend. > the problem with your "build more homes to crash the price 80%" is its a great idea for those who dont have houses already, but for those that do it means enormous losses on their original investments Most home owners treat their property as a home first and an investment second, if at all. Even if it's used as an investment it will usually be invested in their next home. Getting rid of property speculators would be great though. > thats also why it does work in japan Japan seems to have some issues (Hikikomori) that may be exasperated by this lack of permanence. Paying ever increasing rent and/or moving when I'm retired instead of $0 to live out my days in peace doesn't sound appealing.
- gaspoweredcat 7y ago
  its all personal preference at the end of the day, i can honestly say ive never been part of a "community" hell its rare ive even known my next door neighbours names nor do i have a desire to. as for long term friend ive known most of mine for upwards of 2 decades, we havent lost touch so far and i dont see it happening in future i also have no plans to retire, if i stop working ill become incredibly bored incredibly fast, im sure its a goal for those with partners etc or things theyve held off doing but not me, if ive wanted to do something i generally do it there and then and my emotional and social issues mean that i have no interest in having a family or partner, i have my hobbies and my work which is pretty much all i need while not to the extremes of japans hikikomori we have a significant number of people in their 20s and 30s still living with their parents here, but these arent jobless shut-ins theyre just regular people, the reasons for it are many, some simply cant afford to live alone and why rent a room in a shared house with a bunch of strangers when you can rent one with people you know? i suspect another reason is that single accommodation like one bed flats etc is not that common here so if you do rent alone youre likely renting a 2 bed house, which can feel rather dull and empty if youre living alone im also aware that i have a serious lack of responsibility, were i to own a place id have access to significant lines of credit and id end up doing something stupid and get it repossessed.

parski 7y ago

I'm paying less for my 240m² house that I own than I did when I when I was renting a 70m² apartment a year ago. I live in a better neighborhood with three times the space and with every monthly payment I'm building my net worth. I take ownership of my home and learn skills to maintain and repair it. I run around naked with really loud music at night and it's nobody's business but mine. Feels great. Also free parking and I'm growing food that I eat. Neat. There is no doubt that owning my home is a lot better for me than renting, both economically and living standard wise. As for the server: excluding third party physical access is a major security feature.

joelx 7y ago
I should have clarified that this applies to the US.

mothsonasloth 7y ago

This article illustrates a cultural problem that is emerging especially with the 20-30s generation. You can try blaming it on baby boomers, high living costs, lifestyle choices, avocados etc. They don't care about ownership or property and instead want to consume everything as a service right away for convenience. This might be a one off service or something they are tied into with some contract. I'm 31 and my peers either can't or won't buy property, cars, phones, kitchen utensils or other assets. It's like feudalism 2.0, there's a whole bunch of people who own nothing now and are tied into contracts which can be quite onerous. Serfdom 2.0 for the middle classes. Ready to be milked by the people who own these services. Another example is the music market. It's become intangible with Spotify etc. I still keep digital copies of music and host a Plex server which I control. Noone can deny me access that way. I still have CDs if something really goes wrong. It's almost like it's cool to be a consumer of Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Lime, DriveNow instead of painstakingly saving for that second hand car or holiday at that hotel resort.

joelx 7y ago
It's far more efficient to share resources then to buy. That is why Uber makes sense. If you own your own car, it might get used on average 40 minutes per day. With Uber that resource is used at least 10 hours each day. By the way, I think baby boomers are the worst generation in history. They're incredibly selfish and have caused huge externalities (climate change, national debt, global destabilization). The greed of the baby boomers has meant that the average standard of living and income has dropped for those coming behind them. We should eliminate benefits these people voted for themselves including Social Security and Medicare. No one else will get them later.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "It's far more efficient to share resources then to buy" If it was more efficient, it wouldn't be more expensive. If it wasn't more expensive, there wouldn't be all these huge startups.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago

stzup7 7y ago

Owning your home is an long term insurance. If your source of income dries up, you'll still have a home.

marssaxman 7y ago
How's that going to work? You still have to pay your mortgage and property tax.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Well, if your mortgage is paid off or you saved for 20 or 30 years in the first place.

mister_hn 7y ago

As millennial and house owner in Berlin, I totally disagree with those statements. If you try to rent an apartment as a family of 4 (say, min. 85-90 m²), you have to pay at least something not less than 900€, excluding annual costs review, electricity, internet and so on. On top of that, there's the "incremental-steps", set usually on 3%. Sure, owning a house is not easy and requires efforts, but in the era of 0% interests or negative interests, buying a house in a Big City IMHO represents a far better investment than keeping money in a bank account or giving away for rental. A House can also work as insurance: if for some reasons you are facing economic difficulties, you can think of selling it and moving in a smaller apartment. As renter, what happens if you're already in difficulty and can't afford to pay the actual rent? I hate much everything of the "rental" services: you can access something but you can't own it. What happens if in 10 years I want exactly access that thing again? Will it be there? I'm sure it won't and there are tons of examples already (See: Disney content flying away from Netflix, Music disappearing from Spotify due to copyright/labels, Games not available anymore on Steam due geolocalization, etc. etc.)

milkytron 7y ago
>I hate much everything of the "rental" services: you can access something but you can't own it. Universities in the US are doing this with course material now. I had to pay for a subscription service to access my assignments, so that my professors didn't have to review anything. I had to pay for the service to get credit for that portion of the class, and then all my work in that service vanished after the semester ended. No more access to the work I had done despite having classes the next semester that I would need that work to reference. The professor didn't pay a dime, and 100 students had to pay the cost so that the professor didn't have to review our work. Involuntary consumerism at its finest. I started a petition, and tried arguing with the admins of the school to see if we could have these services banned or at least paid for by the professor. They asked "How is this different than buying a book you need?" Answer is obvious, books don't disappear after the semester, they can be found in the library if you can't afford them, and they don't do the professors' job. They asked "Well you can afford tuition, can't you afford the subscription?" No, I can't afford tuition, now you want more? At the end of the day, I went back and forth with them, and they wouldn't budge. And I could tell it was really tearing their moral fabric, but no one in power wanted to budge because $$$$$

esotericn 7y ago

Hi Joel. I'm your landlord, and I'm selling the house. You know, cause like, it's mine. I want you out next month. Yeah, I'll take the stability of buying, thanks. The server comparison is disingenuous because migrating data is essentially trivial and has almost no emotional impact compared to moving home. I mean, it'd be brilliant if I could rsync my cabinets.

jd751 7y ago

10 stories apartments. Instead of visiting Tokyo go visit Moscow or any capital from the previous eastern european communist countries. See how that worked out for the rich and poor. You compare housing with data. Devaluation of humans to the point where you believe they can be compared to just 0s and 1s is whats wrong with your article. But i guess you still think this is just a statistic. Someone else did too.

leommoore 7y ago

The essential difference is that the location of your server matters a lot less than where you are located. Maybe you have a job that you can work remotely and never have to travel but there is more to life than work. Your neighbours, friends, kids, schools and your favourite coffee shop are part of who you are.