4 ms·

This sounds ridiculous at first, but there some truth to it. Even for first time home buyers, the debate between buying and renting typically is about how good

This sounds ridiculous at first, but there some truth to it. Even for first time home buyers, the debate between buying and renting typically is about how good an investment buying is. If housing prices remain stable or even drop slightly every year, renting would be much more prudent choice in current market conditions.

tristor 5y ago
> Even for first time home buyers, the debate between buying and renting typically is about how good an investment buying is. I think this is true, but is missing some nuance that changes the equation. The conversation is /and should be/ about the fact that buying w/ a mortgage means that the payments you make every month create equity (ownership percentage) and have an end date where you fully and outrightly own the property you live in. Rent is a situation where the payment never ends, you never gain any ownership or equity, and you will never own the property no longer how long you rent. Classifying this as an "investment" is true, even if home values don't outpace inflation, because its an equity asset you can later sell and recoup your equity. But that conversation is not remotely the same thing as foreign investors using Western real estate to launder money they smuggled out of corrupt dictatorial regimes and Wall Street colluding with each other to buy up housing stock in a rent-seeking bid to extract as many pennies as possible, even if it puts working citizens on the streets. I think making the false equivalence between them does a disservice to home buyers. While it is absolutely true that resident home buyers should value a property primarily /as a place to live/, their understanding of the economics of renting vs buying does not make them part of the problem. The problem is systemic and starts with allowing foreign corporations or foreign-directed corporations to buy real estate and the existence of REITs.

tristor 5y ago

> Even for first time home buyers, the debate between buying and renting typically is about how good an investment buying is. I think this is true, but is missing some nuance that changes the equation. The conversation is /and should be/ about the fact that buying w/ a mortgage means that the payments you make every month create equity (ownership percentage) and have an end date where you fully and outrightly own the property you live in. Rent is a situation where the payment never ends, you never gain any ownership or equity, and you will never own the property no longer how long you rent. Classifying this as an "investment" is true, even if home values don't outpace inflation, because its an equity asset you can later sell and recoup your equity. But that conversation is not remotely the same thing as foreign investors using Western real estate to launder money they smuggled out of corrupt dictatorial regimes and Wall Street colluding with each other to buy up housing stock in a rent-seeking bid to extract as many pennies as possible, even if it puts working citizens on the streets. I think making the false equivalence between them does a disservice to home buyers. While it is absolutely true that resident home buyers should value a property primarily /as a place to live/, their understanding of the economics of renting vs buying does not make them part of the problem. The problem is systemic and starts with allowing foreign corporations or foreign-directed corporations to buy real estate and the existence of REITs.