4 ms·

Home rental is temporary too, and that’s one of the big benefits.

dahfizz 4y ago
You're always going to live somewhere. Moving is easier when you rent, but you still pay rent at the new place. The rent doesn't stop like in the case of tools or hotel rooms.
janef0421 4y ago
Some tenancies are temporary, and renting can be beneficial in those instances, but most tenancies involve occupants who permanently live in the area and would buy if it were financially feasible.
- zamfi 4y ago
  [citation needed] I have no doubt there are plenty of people who rent permanently in an area but would rather own. But "most"? Half of renters are under 40; according to one analysis, half of renters are young folks just looking for what they can afford in a place they're not sure they want to settle into yet: https://www.naahq.org/who-are-todays-renters https://www.naahq.org/who-are-todays-renters Granted all this is in the US, where homeownership rates hover around 65-66%. I sadly (happily?) don't know anything about the rent/own dynamics in places I have not lived.
  - janef0421 4y ago
    By area, I mean a metropolitan area, and I think most residents of a metropolitan area at any given time have no active plan to leave that metropolitan area.
    - zamfi 4y ago
      Yes, I understand what you mean, and I am disagreeing with you that “most” (as in > 50%) renters who have no active plan to leave a metro area would rather buy, but don’t because they can’t afford to. Some, sure. But doesn’t seem like it’s “most”.
- NavinF 4y ago
  Are you sure? Rent and mortgage are pretty similar per month but if you move every few years the home will cost you a lot more.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    Moving has extra costs associated with it, but you still build equity. After ~30 years, you don't have to pay a mortgage anymore. Any money you saved from renting better go straight into your IRA, because you're still going to be paying rent when you retire. 30 years of mortgage is a lot cheaper than 60 years of rent.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > most tenancies involve occupants who permanently live in the area and would buy if it were financially feasible. What exactly do you mean by “if it were financially feasible”? Like yeah, if a mortgage were cheaper than rent, of course renters would do the cheaper thing.
  - janef0421 4y ago
    I mean if they could afford it.
lumost 4y ago
Human's are naturally short housing. Owning a home closes the short. We unfortunately don't have a suitable financial product to "own" shelter, but not be bound to a location. I'm kinda surprised that a suitable contract for permanent fractionated ownership of an abstract housing unit which you can live in doesn't exist. Granted it's a complex set of incentives to balance.
- nradov 4y ago
  You can invest in REITs that own residential property.
  - lumost 4y ago
    I can't live in a REIT.
- imtringued 4y ago
  It is called a citizen's dividend paid through land value taxes. It means everyone gets an equal share of land on the planet.

You're always going to live somewhere. Moving is easier when you rent, but you still pay rent at the new place. The rent doesn't stop like in the case of tools or hotel rooms.

janef0421 4y ago

Some tenancies are temporary, and renting can be beneficial in those instances, but most tenancies involve occupants who permanently live in the area and would buy if it were financially feasible.

zamfi 4y ago
[citation needed] I have no doubt there are plenty of people who rent permanently in an area but would rather own. But "most"? Half of renters are under 40; according to one analysis, half of renters are young folks just looking for what they can afford in a place they're not sure they want to settle into yet: https://www.naahq.org/who-are-todays-renters https://www.naahq.org/who-are-todays-renters Granted all this is in the US, where homeownership rates hover around 65-66%. I sadly (happily?) don't know anything about the rent/own dynamics in places I have not lived.
- janef0421 4y ago
  By area, I mean a metropolitan area, and I think most residents of a metropolitan area at any given time have no active plan to leave that metropolitan area.
  - zamfi 4y ago
    Yes, I understand what you mean, and I am disagreeing with you that “most” (as in > 50%) renters who have no active plan to leave a metro area would rather buy, but don’t because they can’t afford to. Some, sure. But doesn’t seem like it’s “most”.
NavinF 4y ago
Are you sure? Rent and mortgage are pretty similar per month but if you move every few years the home will cost you a lot more.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Moving has extra costs associated with it, but you still build equity. After ~30 years, you don't have to pay a mortgage anymore. Any money you saved from renting better go straight into your IRA, because you're still going to be paying rent when you retire. 30 years of mortgage is a lot cheaper than 60 years of rent.
tshaddox 4y ago
> most tenancies involve occupants who permanently live in the area and would buy if it were financially feasible. What exactly do you mean by “if it were financially feasible”? Like yeah, if a mortgage were cheaper than rent, of course renters would do the cheaper thing.
- janef0421 4y ago
  I mean if they could afford it.

lumost 4y ago

Human's are naturally short housing. Owning a home closes the short. We unfortunately don't have a suitable financial product to "own" shelter, but not be bound to a location. I'm kinda surprised that a suitable contract for permanent fractionated ownership of an abstract housing unit which you can live in doesn't exist. Granted it's a complex set of incentives to balance.

nradov 4y ago
You can invest in REITs that own residential property.
- lumost 4y ago
  I can't live in a REIT.
imtringued 4y ago
It is called a citizen's dividend paid through land value taxes. It means everyone gets an equal share of land on the planet.