4 ms·

N=1, I am young, have a great job, I don't own a car, I haven't owned a car in 5 years, and I deliberately avoid living in places where I need to own a car. I

N=1, I am young, have a great job, I don't own a car, I haven't owned a car in 5 years, and I deliberately avoid living in places where I need to own a car. I am not interested in owning a "house", too expensive, there is little to no reason to strap myself with long term responsibilities. I am also not interested in drinking, given all evidence on how bad alcohol is, I am not keen on destroying the only tool I have that allows me to live as well as I do. Unless of course you mean drinking for social reasons, which is another thing entirely but I don't do that either.

dymk 4y ago
> there is little to no reason to strap myself with long term responsibilities equity, retirement
- bootsmann 4y ago
  Stocks are better for that in every way. If you buy a house you are dependent on political will to arbitrarily keep house prices high while for stocks the political incentives for growth are guaranteed to go in your favour.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    You don't need the value to remain in any one place. You just need your house to not tank relative to the rest of them so that you can leverage up when you get rich and develop a fetish for "good school district" and downsize when the next is empty. It's a store of value, not an investment. The goal isn't to get rich. It's to not have to pay rent in retirement (yes, I know property taxes).
  - karim 4y ago
    Especially given current population trends — there are no guarantees you'll be able to sell your house for much more than you bought it in 30 years.
scottLobster 4y ago
And never experienced a severe rent shock or an asshole landlord apparently. I hope that remains the case. Having been a renter for the last 10 years, I'm sick of landlords dragging their heels on repairs (in one case I had to take a landlord to small claims court) and my monthly rent spiking 6-10% or else going up by a mere 2-3%, forcing me to lock-in longer term leases to save money. Especially now that the wife and I are in the family formation part of our lives, buying a house in the suburbs is looking more and more attractive. More space, room to do stuff at home, a fixed-rate payment to plan around etc. But I'm assuming that doesn't apply to you at your current stage of life. From a financial perspective, renting is great for staying relatively mobile, but if you're planning to stay in one place for more than a few years, buying is probably the way to go. Nerdwallet has a good calculator comparing the two with a couple of dozen factors taken into account: https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/rent-vs-buy-calculator https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/rent-vs-buy-calculator I agree with you that at the end of the day housing is an expense, I'd much rather fund my retirement with stocks. Although once the kids have moved out downsizing might be able to net a few hundred grand more, but that's a decision for 30 years from now.

dymk 4y ago

> there is little to no reason to strap myself with long term responsibilities equity, retirement

bootsmann 4y ago
Stocks are better for that in every way. If you buy a house you are dependent on political will to arbitrarily keep house prices high while for stocks the political incentives for growth are guaranteed to go in your favour.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  You don't need the value to remain in any one place. You just need your house to not tank relative to the rest of them so that you can leverage up when you get rich and develop a fetish for "good school district" and downsize when the next is empty. It's a store of value, not an investment. The goal isn't to get rich. It's to not have to pay rent in retirement (yes, I know property taxes).
- karim 4y ago
  Especially given current population trends — there are no guarantees you'll be able to sell your house for much more than you bought it in 30 years.

scottLobster 4y ago

And never experienced a severe rent shock or an asshole landlord apparently. I hope that remains the case. Having been a renter for the last 10 years, I'm sick of landlords dragging their heels on repairs (in one case I had to take a landlord to small claims court) and my monthly rent spiking 6-10% or else going up by a mere 2-3%, forcing me to lock-in longer term leases to save money. Especially now that the wife and I are in the family formation part of our lives, buying a house in the suburbs is looking more and more attractive. More space, room to do stuff at home, a fixed-rate payment to plan around etc. But I'm assuming that doesn't apply to you at your current stage of life. From a financial perspective, renting is great for staying relatively mobile, but if you're planning to stay in one place for more than a few years, buying is probably the way to go. Nerdwallet has a good calculator comparing the two with a couple of dozen factors taken into account: https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/rent-vs-buy-calculator https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/rent-vs-buy-calculator I agree with you that at the end of the day housing is an expense, I'd much rather fund my retirement with stocks. Although once the kids have moved out downsizing might be able to net a few hundred grand more, but that's a decision for 30 years from now.