You're not actually providing any value. You're just offsetting the cost and more than likely profiting by doing so. Renting versus owning when it comes to main

You're not actually providing any value. You're just offsetting the cost and more than likely profiting by doing so. Renting versus owning when it comes to maintenance and repairs functions more like insurance, where you're paying more per month versus paying more upfront in a sort of bet against probability. That's assuming the landlord actually does maintenance or repairs instead of neglecting those issues. Regarding that bet against the cost of upkeep for the shortest term, months, renting's probably the most expensive option. Short term, two to five years, renting's cheapest or can be the cheapest (assuming you don't live in a trailer home or one of those sheds converted into a tiny house). Long term, more than five years, renting's once again the most expensive option. Renting for the renter only makes sense in a very specific context. Another factor is home owner's insurance. Home owner's insurance is far more likely to cover high cost replacements than renter's insurance, and often is far more comprehensive in coverage. Renter's insurance might only cover up to $50,000 depending on your policy and exclude things like vehicles or special equipment like HAM radios. It also often doesn't cover certain natural disasters like earthquakes or tornadoes, which makes it harder for people in places like Memphis Tennessee to recover after those events. Providing value, in a broader sense, would be paying a specialist to come in and fix the furnace. Something a modern homeowner would likely do anyways due to either the mechanical complexity, time involved, or level of skill required. That's money going to a dedicated job that's likely from a local business since HVAC and plumbing tend to be trades. The homeowner's upfront expense is more, but ignoring things like regional wealth extraction the local economy is strengthened because of it.