5 ms·

Counterpoint: buying is always better, people just can't afford it. Here where I live the minimum price for rent is monthly mortgage installement, meaning that

• wavemode 1y ago
  > If you rent you're left with nothing. Well, no. You're left with the cash you would've spent buying a house. Whether that's financially better or worse, depends entirely on the mortgage interest, taxes, and maintenance costs of the house, as well as the money you could have earned investing the cash elsewhere, compared to the rent you would have spent over the same time period.
  • zeroq 1y ago
    that's true only if you were homeless
  • estimator7292 1y ago
    When renting a 1br costs as much as my mortgage on a 3br, I don't think that really tracks.
    • klipt 1y ago
      Depends where you live though. In the SF Bay Area, buying requires a monthly payment several times larger than the rent for an equivalent place.
      • crooked-v 1y ago
        The Bay Area market is a bizarre one because of how Prop 13 and extremely thorough renter protections lead to perverse incentives for everyone.
        • HaZeust 1y ago
          Denver is like it too, what's your prescription there?
    • sothatsit 1y ago
      "If I set up a scenario largely in favour of buying, then buying makes more sense" I have never seen a 1br costing anywhere near as much to rent as a 3br costs to buy. In what markets is this even remotely close to accurate? Or are you just ignoring the cost of ownership entirely?
    • refurb 1y ago
      But a mortage isn't the only cost of owning. Property taxes, maintenance, possibly utilities.
    • phil21 1y ago
      Sure, but this is not universal. I could have bought 15 years before I did. But because rent was less than half a mortgage (not even including maintenance), I was able to put that extra money into the market and save enough for more than a down payment on a forever home vs starter home when I was ready. It’s certainly not like for like, but it would have been a poor financial decision to buy vs rent. Where I live now this math is more or less inverted. Makes more sense to buy vs rent. In the end your primary residence is a lifestyle decision, not a financial one. It’s not an investment in the traditional sense. It’s speculation at best.
      • zeroq 1y ago
        I've ran this simulation a number of times through my head: When I left my parents I could have bought a small, sordid 40sqm for 80k in my home town. Before I left my home town few years later a friend of mine bought an absolutely awesome 70sqm for 200k. Then I moved to the capitol city and I was looking at either somehow decent 70sqm for 550k or absolutely stunning 70sqm 850k. Precovid we were looking at the best apt I've ever seen, 85sqm for 950k. But the offer was shortly taken down. It came back few months later at 1.2M and owners called us back. I should have took it on the spot, but I decided play slow only to learn that the price went up to 1.5M. At that time it seemed too much. Post covid gets me a sordid place in suburbs. Point is - if I was told when I was a kid that "investing" in real estate is the best thing you could do and mortgage is nothing you should be afraid of I could have 7 to 9 apts by now without streching too much. I'm fully aware of multiverse - if I got that first apt my life would probably went slightly differrent route, but still. I'd get that first apt when I was earning 5k/mth in 20y mortgage and just in few years I'd be earning 20k/mth. EDIT: I've rent a number of places and went out to see a countless ones. Here it's pretty standard that when you go out to check a place for rent and speak to landlord it turns out he has ten more. If you don't like this one he may have another one that suits your needs better. I have a friend of mine with which we spoke about investing in real estate from time to time but he was hesitant - too much hustle, legal uncertainty (we leave in communist EU mind you), etc. But once his mother died and left him an apt he decided to rent it. He felt too attached to sell it and it needed a renovation anyway. So he decided to rent it as it was, just to keep it and not having to think too much about it. Fast forward two years later he has two more apts he's renting. And his thought process is really simple - I have savings so I can afford to buy these places, random people will pay for the mortgage, I will get some extra cash in the process, and when all is done his daugher will inherit all this apts and be able to live of it.
  • cramsession 1y ago
    Rents are pretty much always going to be higher than a mortgage for the equivalent housing. It's why people are landlords. He dances around that in the article by saying that people buy "nicer" places than they rent, but that doesn't have to be true.
    • tomjakubowski 1y ago
      Rent only has to exceed the property's operating costs -- things like mortgage interest, property tax, paying a manager, insurance, repairs and maintenance -- for the landlord to come out ahead. Paying off the principal is a capital expense.
      • cramsession 1y ago
        Landlords charge market rate, which includes mortgages.
    • Esophagus4 1y ago
      But a mortgage isn’t the cost of owning a house. Rent payments are the cost of renting. If you want to compare the costs of renting and buying, you need to compare renting=(rent payments + renter’s insurance) vs. owning=(mortgage payments + property taxes + insurance + maintenance and repairs + equity appreciation / depreciation)
      • cramsession 1y ago
        Landlords bake those costs into the rent price.
        • Esophagus4 1y ago
          Too hand waivey and doesn’t tell the whole story - even with the carry costs “baked in”, renting is generally cheaper in the short run because those costs are lower anyway. > Average rents are cheaper than average mortgage payments (homeowners insurance and property taxes included) in all 50 of the largest U.S. metros in 2025, with the cost difference between the two growing in all but 12 of those metros since last year, according to Bankrate’s Rent vs. Buy Study. > Over the last year, the study found average mortgage payments (including principal, interest, homeowners insurance and property taxes) increased while average rents either declined or remained stable in nearly all the metros we analyzed. > Housing experts said the fact that it’s cheaper to rent in all 50 metros in 2025 is a broader reflection of rental and housing market conditions across the country. [1] https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/rent-vs-buy-affordability-study/ https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/rent-vs-buy-affordabili...
  • whymarrh 1y ago
    You’re right, the math is slightly more complicated than rent v. mortgage payment. Ben Felix, a popular financial YouTuber, made many a video about the math: https://youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=lBG-g1CKfgs https://youtube.com/watch?v=lBG-g1CKfgs
  • carlosjobim 1y ago
    What? That cash goes to the landlord.
    • foxglacier 1y ago
      In the same way the interest payments on a mortgage go the the bank. And the interest is often the majority of the payments people make on a mortgage. If you're renting, in a market where rents are about the same or lower than mortgage interest, then you keep the leftover cash that the buyer put into their house and you can put into whatever investment you choose.
      • bluefirebrand 1y ago
        > In the same way the interest payments on a mortgage go the the bank Yeah, but at least you own something at the end of it > And the interest is often the majority of the payments people make on a mortgage Only if you're stupid and only ever pay the bare minimum. Of course many people unfortunately are
        • foxglacier 1y ago
          No you don't own something at the end of it. Interest is the cost of having use of the house. If you sell the house and settle your mortgage, the bank won't give your interest back. It's lost for good.
      • carlosjobim 1y ago
        Paying rent is the same as paying 100% interest. You lose everything you have paid, it counts towards nothing for you. Paying a mortgage, you pay part amortization and part interest. Even if only 10% of your monthly payment is amortization each month, it's better than paying rent. > If you're renting, in a market where rents are about the same or lower than mortgage interest, then you keep the leftover cash that the buyer put into their house and you can put into whatever investment you choose. Such a market doesn't exist anywhere on this planet. Rent is always higher than mortgage + interest.
• ghaff 1y ago
  >Counterpoint: buying is always better, people just can't afford it. >Renting has it's charm for youngsters You're sort of contradicting yourself. So long as you think you're sort of settled in an area, buying is probably better. But, if it's your first job out of school, even if you have a nice bunch of money you could put towards a down payment, it's not clear that buying is a great idea except maybe if you're in an area with lots of jobs for your chosen profession. Once I bought, somewhat belatedly, I was in an area that offered enough possibilities in my (broadly speaking) field even if a couple commutes were on the long side.
  • cramsession 1y ago
    If you're young and you buy, you could get roommates and have them pay rent. That would definitely tilt the benefits heavily to buying.
    • const_cast 1y ago
      Obviously the risk of this is significantly higher than just renting. If you have your first job and therefore little to no liquid cash, and then on top of that you require tenants to make your mortgage, you're in a pretty risky position. That means that if just about anything goes wrong you can be absolutely fucked.
      • ghaff 1y ago
        You require a job and you require tenants or you're not going to be able to pay your mortgage.
  • zeroq 1y ago
    Not really. If it's viable for you then buy your first property as soon as possible and keep saving. When you want to move just buy another and rent the previous one. In most cases people will need to get a half decent job and save for a few years first but they can keep saving and have enough for another property in few years. And if you really have to move - then you can still sell that property. People are getting new cars every 2-3 years and it's not that different from swapping real estate.
• rob_c 1y ago
  > Because few people can afford the 20% downpayement needed for mortgage. Current state of the British economy is the state is looking to allow 40yr 5% deposit mortgages. We're not quite there yet but it's heading that way. Be very thankful if your country isn't that bad!
  • shoo 1y ago
    Interesting. Down here in Australia our economy has been doing OK, we've had a great run of dodging recessions, but due to house prices appreciating so much since the 90s, there's similar problems with house down payments being far out of reach of many people. Recently, our government is making a change to allow first homebuyers to purchase properties with only a 5% deposit. Historically the Australian government set up the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation in '67, to provide insurance for banks against the risk of borrowers defaulting, to support home buyers. In 1997 the Howard government privatised the HLIC by selling it to GE, and we've had a private sector for mortgage insurance since, compulsory if borrowers are borrowing more than 80%. Now in 2025 the current Albanese government is rolling out a scheme where the government will act as a public mortgage insurer again to allow first home buyers to buy with only a 5% deposit. I'm not quite sure what to think. I heard an economist interviewed who reckoned this was a great idea to make it easier for young people to get into the property market, arguing that Aussie homeowners historically hardly ever default on mortgages. But naively it seems like this is yet another change that is going to push up house prices even further by increasing demand, without doing something to increase supply. I also wonder if systemic mortgage default risk appears like it is lower than it actually is because Australia has been lucky enough to escape a major recession for so long.
    • Panzer04 1y ago
      There's some pretty poor economists out there, and don't underestimate ethe ability of journalists to find someone conforming to their biases. I think giving the government an interest in keeping house prices high is an awful idea and we should get over this obsession with homeownership.
      • 1y ago
• abxyz 1y ago
  Renting is expensive because people can’t buy, driving up prices. If buying were cheap because of increased supply, rent would be cheap too, and much more appealing for the practical benefits. The problem is housing supply, not buying or renting being expensive, that’s a consequence.
• malshe 1y ago
  > Here where I live the minimum price for rent is monthly mortgage installement, meaning that you'll pay for rent at least as much as you'd pay for mortgage. When you own, the mortgage payment is the floor on your monthly cash outlay. by contrast, when you rent, the rent is the ceiling on your monthly cash outlay. So even when they are identical, homeownership is way costlier because of all the other costs one "forgets" to consider while making this comparison. HOA dues, home insurance, property tax, maintenance, etc. add up to thousands of dollars each year. As a renter, you don't have to consider any of these beyond your rent.
  • IncreasePosts 1y ago
    Sure, but on the other hand, when you have a mortgage (generally fixed interest rate for 20+ years), your biggest expense is guaranteed to stay static. What will your rent be in 10 years? Who the heck knows?
  • bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > As a renter, you don't have to consider any of these beyond your rent. As a renter, all of these are baked into your rent :/
    • malshe 1y ago
      Not ALL. Besides, apartment management operates on a different scale altogether. Individual homeowners will never be able to match that.
  • zeroq 1y ago
    As a renter I don't pay property tax, but I do pay maintancene, insurance, utility bills and whatever else can easily attached to the monthly bill. The rest is baked into the cost.
    • malshe 1y ago
      It is baked into the cost and you know it up front. That's the ceiling I am talking about.
• xboxnolifes 1y ago
  It's not just being able to afford it. It's also how easy can you sell it. Basically, how liquid is the house, and how many expenses are there on the transaction, impacts how much it's worth to buy. My thought experiment is basically: If I get a new job in a new city, is it smart buy a house right away? And if the answer is not always "yes", then obviously buying is not always the best option.
• jandrewrogers 1y ago
  Where you live doesn't generalize. Where I live, interest payments alone exceed the rental rate for the same property even if you could afford a 20% downpayment. Those interest payments are a total loss. No amount of contortions can make those numbers pencil out where ownership is beneficial to the buyer. As it happens I now rent but I recently sold my house because it didn't make sense even though my carrying costs were far lower than any new buyer. By the time you pay off a mortgage, a renter could afford to buy the same property for cash with money left over.
  • dbish 1y ago
    In NYC, an already expensive place to rent, a mortgage for a similar spot that I rent would be around double the monthly payment plus the 20%+ down.