4 ms·

That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right? Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house

That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right? Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund. It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person.

mulmen 2y ago
> That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right? No, it isn’t. You can invest your savings. If you had put $2,500.00 a month into SPY500 since October 2009 (15 years ago) you’d have $1,388,302.13 today. https://dqydj.com/sp-500-periodic-reinvestment-calculator-dividends/ https://dqydj.com/sp-500-periodic-reinvestment-calculator-di... > Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund. How is saving for a house “on top of” literally “saving”? If you can save for retirement, savings, and emergencies then you have the mental fortitude to save for a house. People are bad with money, we know that. One of the best examples is buying a house they can’t afford. > It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person. Yes, agree.
- xeromal 2y ago
  Yeah, I just think examples like this need to work for the masses in order to be useful otherwise they're just pie in the sky advice like abstinence to prevent childbirth. It does work and it's 100% effective but humans are horny. Same with saving this amount of money, there's a select few that can pull it off but most are incapable. Those are the people advice is for
  - mulmen 2y ago
    I don’t disagree with you. But I was replying to this question: > So how does one buy a house without being dependent on cash flow? The answer to which is “you don’t”. Most people can’t afford to buy a house and never will. Even many homeowners. I will spell it out if it isn’t already clear. Live within your means and save as much as you can, investing that savings in a diversified portfolio. Buy a home only when your savings allow for it.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Most people can’t afford to buy a house and never will Most homes in America are owned by the person who lives there.
      - kasey_junk 2y ago
        And it’s not particularly close. ~65% of households own their home. That rate is higher now than in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. It rofl stomps the pre-war era.
        mulmen 2y ago
        Do you have a full dataset on this? All I could find is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N which only goes back to 1965.
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        The datasets and collection methodologies have changed overtime, the Fred one is the best if you want continuous definitions. The census also collects data on the subject https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/coh-ownerchar.html#:~:text=Generally%2C%20homeownership%20rates%20rose%20in,to%2066%20percent%20in%202000 https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/coh-owner....
        mulmen 2y ago
        Now I’m curious how this happened. This is the portion of homes owned by their residents, not the number of owned homes as a portion of total population. I’m also curious what the income and wealth to home ratios are. Looks like I have a weekend project.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        My bet is simple: Boomers are all at retirement age if we use the cap of 1954, they were basically given land during the post-war boom. Many had a lifetime career so there was no need to constantly hustle and move about to get a comfortable life. Home ownership is likely very top heavy for Boomers and older Gen X as a result. If that's even in the ballpark we're going to see a lot of assets aquired by insurance and hospitals to pay off the final years and this residential ownershio will torpeo.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

mulmen 2y ago

> That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right? No, it isn’t. You can invest your savings. If you had put $2,500.00 a month into SPY500 since October 2009 (15 years ago) you’d have $1,388,302.13 today. https://dqydj.com/sp-500-periodic-reinvestment-calculator-dividends/ https://dqydj.com/sp-500-periodic-reinvestment-calculator-di... > Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund. How is saving for a house “on top of” literally “saving”? If you can save for retirement, savings, and emergencies then you have the mental fortitude to save for a house. People are bad with money, we know that. One of the best examples is buying a house they can’t afford. > It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person. Yes, agree.

xeromal 2y ago
Yeah, I just think examples like this need to work for the masses in order to be useful otherwise they're just pie in the sky advice like abstinence to prevent childbirth. It does work and it's 100% effective but humans are horny. Same with saving this amount of money, there's a select few that can pull it off but most are incapable. Those are the people advice is for
- mulmen 2y ago
  I don’t disagree with you. But I was replying to this question: > So how does one buy a house without being dependent on cash flow? The answer to which is “you don’t”. Most people can’t afford to buy a house and never will. Even many homeowners. I will spell it out if it isn’t already clear. Live within your means and save as much as you can, investing that savings in a diversified portfolio. Buy a home only when your savings allow for it.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Most people can’t afford to buy a house and never will Most homes in America are owned by the person who lives there.
    - kasey_junk 2y ago
      And it’s not particularly close. ~65% of households own their home. That rate is higher now than in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. It rofl stomps the pre-war era.
      - mulmen 2y ago
        Do you have a full dataset on this? All I could find is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N which only goes back to 1965.
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        The datasets and collection methodologies have changed overtime, the Fred one is the best if you want continuous definitions. The census also collects data on the subject https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/coh-ownerchar.html#:~:text=Generally%2C%20homeownership%20rates%20rose%20in,to%2066%20percent%20in%202000 https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/coh-owner....
        mulmen 2y ago
        Now I’m curious how this happened. This is the portion of homes owned by their residents, not the number of owned homes as a portion of total population. I’m also curious what the income and wealth to home ratios are. Looks like I have a weekend project.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        My bet is simple: Boomers are all at retirement age if we use the cap of 1954, they were basically given land during the post-war boom. Many had a lifetime career so there was no need to constantly hustle and move about to get a comfortable life. Home ownership is likely very top heavy for Boomers and older Gen X as a result. If that's even in the ballpark we're going to see a lot of assets aquired by insurance and hospitals to pay off the final years and this residential ownershio will torpeo.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]