7 ms·

Home ownership is not the boon to older Americans that it once was

30 points by MilnerRoute 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
- kalleboo 2y ago
  The archive is still missing the whole article, it ends with "Thank you for your patience while we verify access."
thegrim33 2y ago
So, to summarize this article, it's a short piece about one specific couple. There's not a single piece of data about other people that might be in a similar situation, there's not a single piece of relevant data about the housing market, in fact, there's not a single solitary bit of input from the author. The entire story is 6 paragraphs that quote one person saying they're having trouble downsizing out of their home. This somehow translates to a title with a broad sweeping statement about all older Americans? And how home ownership is a problem for older Americans? How is this journalism? How is this published in the New York Times? Did the author even fact check anything this couple told them? Did they research into their situation at all? Who knows. Is there more to the article that I can't see because I'm not subscribed, and it's not making it evident? I just don't understand what this is.
- wetpaws 2y ago
  [dead]
- citiguy 2y ago
  [flagged]
- willis936 2y ago
  [flagged]
- tanaros 2y ago
  I think you’re only seeing the intro to the article, and then perhaps your ad blocker is preventing the “subscribe to see more” bit from showing up. The actual article is longer than six paragraphs and has some statistics and quotes from more people, including a researcher studying the space.
- hadrien01 2y ago
  > The entire story is 6 paragraphs There's more than 30 paragraphs in that story.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  Every time I hear news about boomers not being able to downsize, I think “well isn’t it the good ol consequences of my actions”. The nimbys made it impossible to build and created a system where landlords benefited from just being born early. The rest of the generations have been dealing with this problem for years, welcome to the party.
  - danielscrubs 2y ago
    It’s not really a generational thing, my parents where worried about the housing market in the early nineties when they saw that people had it as an investment. The problem is that no politician wants to solve it in a sustainable way because it would lead to their own biggest investment, that is also leveraged, would loose value. But we also have a pension system that relies on humans being more populous. Politicians have all these perverse incentives. If we could get a more direct democracy it would solve a lot of problems.
Afforess 2y ago
Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/health/seniors-home-equity-mortgages.html?unlocked_article_code=1.rU0.e6kU.mPuwvFBwYywu&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/health/seniors-home-equit...
- MuffinFlavored 2y ago
  How does NY Times not shut this down / ban you for doing this? Why don't they shut down the link after like 10 unique people visit it?
  - NSMutableSet 2y ago
    Because they still make money off ad impressions.
    - MuffinFlavored 2y ago
      Then why don't they give it all away for free with that logic?...
      - richk449 2y ago
        Look up “price discrimination”.
      - nrb 2y ago
        Because the goal is sustainable subscription revenue. This feature is for subscribers to promote NYT content, typically among people you know and discuss the articles with, which is probably a great channel for them gaining new subscribers.
        MuffinFlavored 2y ago
        > Yes, sharing a gift article URL generated from a New York Times paid subscription on platforms like Reddit is generally against their terms of service. The New York Times allows subscribers to generate gift links for specific articles, which are intended for personal use, meaning they are supposed to be shared privately with individuals rather than publicly. Publicly posting these links can lead to unauthorized access beyond the intended use, which violates the terms outlined by the New York Times for using their subscription services. It's always good to check the specific terms and conditions directly on their website to understand the limitations and permissions regarding the sharing of content.
complaintdept 2y ago
Paywalled, so I can't read the article, but a funny problem of Boomers owning expensive properties today is that a lot of them can't afford to sell because of capital gains on homes they may have bought 40-50 years ago for <$100,000. If they don't have much wealth besides their home (many homeowners) they won't have enough to move into a new place in their area because everyone else's home has shot up in value as well, and taxes just ate up a hefty portion of the sale from their previous home. So they make do with what they have, property values go up, and a lot of people are unable to buy homes because it doesn't make sense to sell. I'd be interested in seeing, say, a five-year moratorium on capital gains from real estate to see if it helps cool the market.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  All I’ll say is, I’ll vote out any government that passes any policy that benefits only the boomers. Consistently influencing policy decisions that only benefited them at each point in their life is why we’re in the mess we’re in. You can’t just change the rules for the game every other generation has been dealing with just because you now have to play it too.
  - complaintdept 2y ago
    If it cools the market down it benefits just about everyone except the speculators.
    - darth_avocado 2y ago
      It doesn’t cool the market, only allows people who already have made a lot of money at the expense of others, keep their money while others don’t. Do I get a moratorium on my income taxes?
- gareim 2y ago
  They can absolutely sell. The first 250k (500k if married) of *profit* is excluded completely from taxes. And then any profits after that are taxed at 0%, 15%, or 20%. If you're making that much money on a sale you're not getting my sympathy that you might pay < 20% of your PROFITS. Get out of here with the pity for the well-off. If they don't need the cash bad enough to sell, then don't sell. If they do, they'll have quite a nest egg after.
reacharavindh 2y ago
How can one not understand that their house increasing in value means the house they want to buy also (proportional) increases in value?! Are those older Americans represented in the article thinking that their house will increase in value to 700K while the apartments they wanted will stay at 100K for 20 years?
- jeffbee 2y ago
  I don't know but you can see that this misunderstanding is extremely widespread, bordering on universal. Name any American politician who does not agree with the idea that the way to help poor people is to get them to "build wealth" through homeownership, a scheme under which some future person must necessarily become impoverished.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    The building wealth part is because you have a non-depreciating asset worth something. For most people their only wealth is a retirement account, a meager savings, and the equity in their home. And your home/land is an asset that provides utility that isn't spent by you using it.
    - xethos 2y ago
      That's kind of the crazy part though - how the hell does something you use and abuse every day, that you by definition leave out in the elements, not depreciate? Or at the very least, it is messed up that the depreciation is so minimal compared to the appreciation of the home (and not the land) The land I can see. Land is in limited supply; AFAIK it's mostly just Hawai'i that's making more on occasion, and that's about it. But the actual building should depreciate.
      - slowmovintarget 2y ago
        You seem to assume that people living in their home will spend nothing on maintenance and upkeep. In my experience, the mortgage is about half the expense of owning a home.
nytesky 2y ago
I thought the prior generations all downsized to lower cost areas when they sold their home. Before it was FL and AZ, but now it’s maybe Ohio and New Mexico? Or are those low cost places really have no homes available? With the stair elevators and other modern retrofits I think most homes can be made accessible.
k310 2y ago
Related: A 71-year-old Californian explains why she's one of many boomers reluctant to sell their large homes and downsize — and it has nothing to do with money Eliza Relman Mar 24, 2024 https://www.businessinsider.com/71-year-old-boomer-cant-find-condo-downsize-oakland-california-2024-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/71-year-old-boomer-cant-find... The gist: Frieden and her husband are prioritizing accessibility, so they've looked mostly at larger condominium buildings with elevators. But they'd also like a small outdoor space, like a balcony, enough wall space for their art, and a home office and spare bedroom for visitors. But there are very few bigger units available, Frieden said. Most of the condos are small one- or two-bedrooms without any outdoor space and with modern, open-plan layouts that appeal more to younger people's tastes and lifestyles. "They feel and seem like they're built for young people," Frieden said of the condo buildings. "They even market, 'the greatest thing about our complex is the gym and the shared courtyard, shared rooftop environment, the bike racks' — all of these things that might not be first on the mind of a senior."
- nytesky 2y ago
  I don’t understand. A two bedroom for a couple is plenty. The guest bedroom can also be the office in the 2nd bedroom. Many complexes have a few units for hoteling guests in the building which is very nice. Balconies have been absent for years, maybe liability risk and more value as usable square feet. But there is usually some nice courtyards, rooftop pools, and of course nearby parks in any city. I guess they don’t want to share the space with others from the sound of it? But places like the villages have thriving 3rd places, and during the workday retirees will have the run of the rooftop pool and courtyards. Elderly should absolutely be using the gym and pool. Many communities have shared gardens where you can get a plot to grown on. Are these untenable compromises?
  - k310 2y ago
    From the article, it seems that needing to drive all over is a big deal, unlike a more close-knit community. I'm 75 and moved from a suburb where I could walk to the corner store and even a nice lake (walking is great for seniors) to the boondocks. Divorce and home sale. Now, the downtown (tourist trap) is 12 miles away, and all the stores I really like are 50 miles away. The driving is a bit much. I am very much liking the prospect of less driving, neighbors who aren't preppers, and less than the 3 feet of front stairs. I'm still strong and can lug a table saw up the stairs, but why ... like that 40 pound cooler with my shopping? Community becomes more important. You want some friends nearby, as well as shopping, and medical facilities. I'm 50 miles from the V.A. medical center and ophthalmologist. Handy is dandy. There's a small place for sale near my daughter's for a mere $680K, with many miles of walking trails, so I don't really need the gym and pool, which come with a HOA fee of over $500/month. Close-packed condos, so lose the workshop, and worry if I am going to go to war over the small grand piano. (I have a Roland keyboard from my married days with a shift-worker partner, but it ain't the same, even if I upgrade it when I can't keep repairing it. ) Working on the cure ... Everyone's wants and needs are different, except for basics. Out of concern, the family bought me an Apple Watch, mainly for the emergency calling.
miked85 2y ago
The rising price of a house you own means very little if everything is going up - plus throw in inflation, interest rate, and taxes. If you move now, you are going to pay more unless you significantly downsize.
- data-ottawa 2y ago
  I think downsizing was always part of the original calculus. The advice I’ve always heard was get a starter house, once you’ve got enough invested and more income upgrade, eventually downgrading to a bungalow which helps pay for your end of life. However, bungalows are going for way more than other house types because of all the simultaneous demand.
jeffbee 2y ago
TL;DR: Boomers want to eat, keep cake. If only it was easier to abscond with their unearned profits from living in an exclusionary subdivision for their entire lives.
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  Don’t worry, when they die the taxes owed will evaporate through the pernicious step up basis at death rule.
MilnerRoute 2y ago
Here's a URL for the story that doesn't require you to create an account to read it. https://www.fidelity.com/insights/retirement/own-home-retirement https://www.fidelity.com/insights/retirement/own-home-retire... That's actually the URL I'd submitted. One of the moderators changed it to the New York Times site (which hides the article unless/until you create an account).
01100011 2y ago
Scott Galloway's TED talk seems relevant here. A couple things I like to mention: I rent. Right now my house cash makes $2,600 after taxes by putting it in T-Bills. This effectively drops my rent to $1,300/mo vs buying and spending $3k/mo for mortgage, taxes, insurance, HOAs and maintenance. I'm happy to rent for now, especially as it seems houses have little room to appreciate further. I think gen Z abandons SFH for lifestyle reasons. Kids are having less children and don't want the maintenance and responsibility of a SFH.
- clipsy 2y ago
  > I rent. Right now my house cash makes $2,600 after taxes by putting it in T-Bills. This effectively drops my rent to $1,300/mo vs buying and spending $3k/mo for mortgage, taxes, insurance, HOAs and maintenance. By my math this puts your "house cash" at around $600k[0]; the vast majority of your generation (and, for that matter, the vast majority of all Americans) do not have that kind of money to invest; their "house cash" is maybe enough for a 10% down payment on a house in the exurbs or a 1 bedroom condo. That said, I wish more people in your position would rent -- far too many would view $600k as an opportunity to buy multiple "cheap" properties as rentals. [0]: $2600 per month is $31200 per year; to earn $31200 per year with an effective interest rate of ~5.17%[1] would require a principal of 31200/0.0517 ~= $603k. [1]: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmubmusd01y?countrycode=bx https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmubmusd01y?count...
  - 01100011 2y ago
    Cash is about $900k. I gave the after -tax amount (tbills are fed taxed but not state taxed). Right, so the average person will pay an even more insane mortgage, making renting an even better deal for them.
- scruple 2y ago
  > ...it seems houses have little room to appreciate further. I keep thinking this, too. But my neighbors home just sold for $894/square foot and the first 3 offers they accepted were all $80k to $100k over their asking price which was already fucking insane to me (and I own the same model on a "better" lot but they put in ~$40k in renovation before listing -- forget whether or not I could even afford to buy my own home if I tried to buy it today, I straight up wouldn't even bother. It has literally not been worth the sticker price for close to 2 years now). They had 8 offers the weekend they listed, the first 3 they accepted fell through because those buyers were accepted on other homes they liked more. The offer that went through was $50k over asking. The new owners put 20% down and mortgaged the other 80%. It's an absolutely staggering monthly payment -- effectively the same house on effectively the same lot but they're paying nearly 4x what we are monthly on housing. There was an article today about our local housing market [0]. I cannot wrap my head around who the fuck is buying these homes and where the hell they're getting their money from. I've thought for years now that we were reaching the top of this market but here we are. It's a very, very hot market where I am, which was also true when we bought here back in 2015/2016, but now the prices have more-than doubled. [0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/it-takes-349-200-income-to-buy-an-orange-county-home-3-5-times-the-us-salary/ar-BB1mdAqE https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/it-takes-349-200-...
dave333 2y ago
Senior mobile home parks are often overlooked. People move into them out of financial necessity and then find out they like living there. Low maintenance, low cost, a bit more independent than renting a condo, can park close to haul in groceries, as much community as you need or want or not, common facilities like a clubhouse and pool without any maintenance. Some parks, residents own the land and control space rents, or the city controls space rents (e.g. San Jose <= 3%/year increase), the rest the space rent is about what you would pay in property taxes on a SFH. A very few parks the park owners gouge the tenants on space rents.

30 points by MilnerRoute 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kalleboo 2y ago
The archive is still missing the whole article, it ends with "Thank you for your patience while we verify access."

thegrim33 2y ago

So, to summarize this article, it's a short piece about one specific couple. There's not a single piece of data about other people that might be in a similar situation, there's not a single piece of relevant data about the housing market, in fact, there's not a single solitary bit of input from the author. The entire story is 6 paragraphs that quote one person saying they're having trouble downsizing out of their home. This somehow translates to a title with a broad sweeping statement about all older Americans? And how home ownership is a problem for older Americans? How is this journalism? How is this published in the New York Times? Did the author even fact check anything this couple told them? Did they research into their situation at all? Who knows. Is there more to the article that I can't see because I'm not subscribed, and it's not making it evident? I just don't understand what this is.

wetpaws 2y ago
[dead]
citiguy 2y ago
[flagged]
willis936 2y ago
[flagged]
tanaros 2y ago
I think you’re only seeing the intro to the article, and then perhaps your ad blocker is preventing the “subscribe to see more” bit from showing up. The actual article is longer than six paragraphs and has some statistics and quotes from more people, including a researcher studying the space.
hadrien01 2y ago
> The entire story is 6 paragraphs There's more than 30 paragraphs in that story.
darth_avocado 2y ago
Every time I hear news about boomers not being able to downsize, I think “well isn’t it the good ol consequences of my actions”. The nimbys made it impossible to build and created a system where landlords benefited from just being born early. The rest of the generations have been dealing with this problem for years, welcome to the party.
- danielscrubs 2y ago
  It’s not really a generational thing, my parents where worried about the housing market in the early nineties when they saw that people had it as an investment. The problem is that no politician wants to solve it in a sustainable way because it would lead to their own biggest investment, that is also leveraged, would loose value. But we also have a pension system that relies on humans being more populous. Politicians have all these perverse incentives. If we could get a more direct democracy it would solve a lot of problems.

Afforess 2y ago

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/health/seniors-home-equity-mortgages.html?unlocked_article_code=1.rU0.e6kU.mPuwvFBwYywu&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/health/seniors-home-equit...

MuffinFlavored 2y ago
How does NY Times not shut this down / ban you for doing this? Why don't they shut down the link after like 10 unique people visit it?
- NSMutableSet 2y ago
  Because they still make money off ad impressions.
  - MuffinFlavored 2y ago
    Then why don't they give it all away for free with that logic?...
    - richk449 2y ago
      Look up “price discrimination”.
    - nrb 2y ago
      Because the goal is sustainable subscription revenue. This feature is for subscribers to promote NYT content, typically among people you know and discuss the articles with, which is probably a great channel for them gaining new subscribers.
      - MuffinFlavored 2y ago
        > Yes, sharing a gift article URL generated from a New York Times paid subscription on platforms like Reddit is generally against their terms of service. The New York Times allows subscribers to generate gift links for specific articles, which are intended for personal use, meaning they are supposed to be shared privately with individuals rather than publicly. Publicly posting these links can lead to unauthorized access beyond the intended use, which violates the terms outlined by the New York Times for using their subscription services. It's always good to check the specific terms and conditions directly on their website to understand the limitations and permissions regarding the sharing of content.

complaintdept 2y ago

Paywalled, so I can't read the article, but a funny problem of Boomers owning expensive properties today is that a lot of them can't afford to sell because of capital gains on homes they may have bought 40-50 years ago for <$100,000. If they don't have much wealth besides their home (many homeowners) they won't have enough to move into a new place in their area because everyone else's home has shot up in value as well, and taxes just ate up a hefty portion of the sale from their previous home. So they make do with what they have, property values go up, and a lot of people are unable to buy homes because it doesn't make sense to sell. I'd be interested in seeing, say, a five-year moratorium on capital gains from real estate to see if it helps cool the market.

darth_avocado 2y ago
All I’ll say is, I’ll vote out any government that passes any policy that benefits only the boomers. Consistently influencing policy decisions that only benefited them at each point in their life is why we’re in the mess we’re in. You can’t just change the rules for the game every other generation has been dealing with just because you now have to play it too.
- complaintdept 2y ago
  If it cools the market down it benefits just about everyone except the speculators.
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    It doesn’t cool the market, only allows people who already have made a lot of money at the expense of others, keep their money while others don’t. Do I get a moratorium on my income taxes?
gareim 2y ago
They can absolutely sell. The first 250k (500k if married) of *profit* is excluded completely from taxes. And then any profits after that are taxed at 0%, 15%, or 20%. If you're making that much money on a sale you're not getting my sympathy that you might pay < 20% of your PROFITS. Get out of here with the pity for the well-off. If they don't need the cash bad enough to sell, then don't sell. If they do, they'll have quite a nest egg after.

reacharavindh 2y ago

How can one not understand that their house increasing in value means the house they want to buy also (proportional) increases in value?! Are those older Americans represented in the article thinking that their house will increase in value to 700K while the apartments they wanted will stay at 100K for 20 years?

jeffbee 2y ago
I don't know but you can see that this misunderstanding is extremely widespread, bordering on universal. Name any American politician who does not agree with the idea that the way to help poor people is to get them to "build wealth" through homeownership, a scheme under which some future person must necessarily become impoverished.
- Spivak 2y ago
  The building wealth part is because you have a non-depreciating asset worth something. For most people their only wealth is a retirement account, a meager savings, and the equity in their home. And your home/land is an asset that provides utility that isn't spent by you using it.
  - xethos 2y ago
    That's kind of the crazy part though - how the hell does something you use and abuse every day, that you by definition leave out in the elements, not depreciate? Or at the very least, it is messed up that the depreciation is so minimal compared to the appreciation of the home (and not the land) The land I can see. Land is in limited supply; AFAIK it's mostly just Hawai'i that's making more on occasion, and that's about it. But the actual building should depreciate.
    - slowmovintarget 2y ago
      You seem to assume that people living in their home will spend nothing on maintenance and upkeep. In my experience, the mortgage is about half the expense of owning a home.

nytesky 2y ago

I thought the prior generations all downsized to lower cost areas when they sold their home. Before it was FL and AZ, but now it’s maybe Ohio and New Mexico? Or are those low cost places really have no homes available? With the stair elevators and other modern retrofits I think most homes can be made accessible.

k310 2y ago

Related: A 71-year-old Californian explains why she's one of many boomers reluctant to sell their large homes and downsize — and it has nothing to do with money Eliza Relman Mar 24, 2024 https://www.businessinsider.com/71-year-old-boomer-cant-find-condo-downsize-oakland-california-2024-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/71-year-old-boomer-cant-find... The gist: Frieden and her husband are prioritizing accessibility, so they've looked mostly at larger condominium buildings with elevators. But they'd also like a small outdoor space, like a balcony, enough wall space for their art, and a home office and spare bedroom for visitors. But there are very few bigger units available, Frieden said. Most of the condos are small one- or two-bedrooms without any outdoor space and with modern, open-plan layouts that appeal more to younger people's tastes and lifestyles. "They feel and seem like they're built for young people," Frieden said of the condo buildings. "They even market, 'the greatest thing about our complex is the gym and the shared courtyard, shared rooftop environment, the bike racks' — all of these things that might not be first on the mind of a senior."

nytesky 2y ago
I don’t understand. A two bedroom for a couple is plenty. The guest bedroom can also be the office in the 2nd bedroom. Many complexes have a few units for hoteling guests in the building which is very nice. Balconies have been absent for years, maybe liability risk and more value as usable square feet. But there is usually some nice courtyards, rooftop pools, and of course nearby parks in any city. I guess they don’t want to share the space with others from the sound of it? But places like the villages have thriving 3rd places, and during the workday retirees will have the run of the rooftop pool and courtyards. Elderly should absolutely be using the gym and pool. Many communities have shared gardens where you can get a plot to grown on. Are these untenable compromises?
- k310 2y ago
  From the article, it seems that needing to drive all over is a big deal, unlike a more close-knit community. I'm 75 and moved from a suburb where I could walk to the corner store and even a nice lake (walking is great for seniors) to the boondocks. Divorce and home sale. Now, the downtown (tourist trap) is 12 miles away, and all the stores I really like are 50 miles away. The driving is a bit much. I am very much liking the prospect of less driving, neighbors who aren't preppers, and less than the 3 feet of front stairs. I'm still strong and can lug a table saw up the stairs, but why ... like that 40 pound cooler with my shopping? Community becomes more important. You want some friends nearby, as well as shopping, and medical facilities. I'm 50 miles from the V.A. medical center and ophthalmologist. Handy is dandy. There's a small place for sale near my daughter's for a mere $680K, with many miles of walking trails, so I don't really need the gym and pool, which come with a HOA fee of over $500/month. Close-packed condos, so lose the workshop, and worry if I am going to go to war over the small grand piano. (I have a Roland keyboard from my married days with a shift-worker partner, but it ain't the same, even if I upgrade it when I can't keep repairing it. ) Working on the cure ... Everyone's wants and needs are different, except for basics. Out of concern, the family bought me an Apple Watch, mainly for the emergency calling.

miked85 2y ago

The rising price of a house you own means very little if everything is going up - plus throw in inflation, interest rate, and taxes. If you move now, you are going to pay more unless you significantly downsize.

data-ottawa 2y ago
I think downsizing was always part of the original calculus. The advice I’ve always heard was get a starter house, once you’ve got enough invested and more income upgrade, eventually downgrading to a bungalow which helps pay for your end of life. However, bungalows are going for way more than other house types because of all the simultaneous demand.

jeffbee 2y ago

TL;DR: Boomers want to eat, keep cake. If only it was easier to abscond with their unearned profits from living in an exclusionary subdivision for their entire lives.

bradleyjg 2y ago
Don’t worry, when they die the taxes owed will evaporate through the pernicious step up basis at death rule.

MilnerRoute 2y ago

Here's a URL for the story that doesn't require you to create an account to read it. https://www.fidelity.com/insights/retirement/own-home-retirement https://www.fidelity.com/insights/retirement/own-home-retire... That's actually the URL I'd submitted. One of the moderators changed it to the New York Times site (which hides the article unless/until you create an account).

01100011 2y ago

Scott Galloway's TED talk seems relevant here. A couple things I like to mention: I rent. Right now my house cash makes $2,600 after taxes by putting it in T-Bills. This effectively drops my rent to $1,300/mo vs buying and spending $3k/mo for mortgage, taxes, insurance, HOAs and maintenance. I'm happy to rent for now, especially as it seems houses have little room to appreciate further. I think gen Z abandons SFH for lifestyle reasons. Kids are having less children and don't want the maintenance and responsibility of a SFH.

clipsy 2y ago
> I rent. Right now my house cash makes $2,600 after taxes by putting it in T-Bills. This effectively drops my rent to $1,300/mo vs buying and spending $3k/mo for mortgage, taxes, insurance, HOAs and maintenance. By my math this puts your "house cash" at around $600k[0]; the vast majority of your generation (and, for that matter, the vast majority of all Americans) do not have that kind of money to invest; their "house cash" is maybe enough for a 10% down payment on a house in the exurbs or a 1 bedroom condo. That said, I wish more people in your position would rent -- far too many would view $600k as an opportunity to buy multiple "cheap" properties as rentals. [0]: $2600 per month is $31200 per year; to earn $31200 per year with an effective interest rate of ~5.17%[1] would require a principal of 31200/0.0517 ~= $603k. [1]: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmubmusd01y?countrycode=bx https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmubmusd01y?count...
- 01100011 2y ago
  Cash is about $900k. I gave the after -tax amount (tbills are fed taxed but not state taxed). Right, so the average person will pay an even more insane mortgage, making renting an even better deal for them.
scruple 2y ago
> ...it seems houses have little room to appreciate further. I keep thinking this, too. But my neighbors home just sold for $894/square foot and the first 3 offers they accepted were all $80k to $100k over their asking price which was already fucking insane to me (and I own the same model on a "better" lot but they put in ~$40k in renovation before listing -- forget whether or not I could even afford to buy my own home if I tried to buy it today, I straight up wouldn't even bother. It has literally not been worth the sticker price for close to 2 years now). They had 8 offers the weekend they listed, the first 3 they accepted fell through because those buyers were accepted on other homes they liked more. The offer that went through was $50k over asking. The new owners put 20% down and mortgaged the other 80%. It's an absolutely staggering monthly payment -- effectively the same house on effectively the same lot but they're paying nearly 4x what we are monthly on housing. There was an article today about our local housing market [0]. I cannot wrap my head around who the fuck is buying these homes and where the hell they're getting their money from. I've thought for years now that we were reaching the top of this market but here we are. It's a very, very hot market where I am, which was also true when we bought here back in 2015/2016, but now the prices have more-than doubled. [0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/it-takes-349-200-income-to-buy-an-orange-county-home-3-5-times-the-us-salary/ar-BB1mdAqE https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/it-takes-349-200-...

dave333 2y ago

Senior mobile home parks are often overlooked. People move into them out of financial necessity and then find out they like living there. Low maintenance, low cost, a bit more independent than renting a condo, can park close to haul in groceries, as much community as you need or want or not, common facilities like a clubhouse and pool without any maintenance. Some parks, residents own the land and control space rents, or the city controls space rents (e.g. San Jose <= 3%/year increase), the rest the space rent is about what you would pay in property taxes on a SFH. A very few parks the park owners gouge the tenants on space rents.