3 ms·

TL;DR: Instead of measuring the percentage of homes that are owned by people who live there, they want to measure the percentage of adults who own a home. Feel

TL;DR: Instead of measuring the percentage of homes that are owned by people who live there, they want to measure the percentage of adults who own a home. Feels like an apples and oranges situation. The two numbers each have their own value but they’re measuring different things. One is calculated based on the number of houses, the other is a measured based on the population of adults or households. Both measures have always existed. Trying to replace one with the other doesn’t seem right because they both have value for different reasons.

bluGill 3mo ago
Both also make the assumption that owning a house is good. Renting should be just as good.
- an0malous 3mo ago
  Why? It’s a position of less security and stability
  - Jtarii 3mo ago
    Renting is significantly less risky from a financial standpoint.
  - jmye 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - footy 3mo ago
    Personally, I like the asset diversification that investing 40% of my income allows. Buying a house at this point in my life would mean a very significant portion of my net worth would be concentrated in one asset, and I'd have less cash flow every month to boot. I don't feel my rental situation in either insecure or unstable. I recently moved (my choice) but previously I lived in the same rental complex for almost a decade. I took advantage of COVID to move to a larger apartment there for cheaper rent, which was a massive advantage I had over friends who owned homes at the time.
- CuriouslyC 3mo ago
  If houses are capital, renting can never be just as good without de-incentivizing renting via legislation, which in reality will result in a massive rental shortfall, since nobody is going to maintain rental property when they could just invest their money in another asset.
- AbsurdCensor 3mo ago
  Renting isn't 'good' though in many metrics. Ownership is, and that's what the push should be for, rather than promoting basically a monthly subscription to have a roof over your head.
  - TeMPOraL 3mo ago
    Does this correct for mortgage? Because owning through a bank loan still amounts to a monthly subscription.
    - bluGill 3mo ago
      If you live there for 30 years - and don't cash-out-refinance - in 30 years your subscription costs go much lower. However if you rent for less than the mortgage you can invest the difference into something that will grow in value more than the house (which SHOULD track inflation) and in turn end up about the same in the end.
      - Silamoth 3mo ago
        In what world is rent lower than mortgage? Part of the reason my fiancé and I bought a house is because it was cheaper than renting. Not just long-term, but our monthly payment is actually noticeably lower. Of course, we did need to pay a down payment. But if you amortize that over a 30 year mortgage period, we’re still better off buying than renting.
        AbsurdCensor 3mo ago
        Zero. Like in zero places would rent be less than a mortgage unless somehow the landlord was making 0, and then at that it would be the same price as a mortgage but without the risk of being locked in for 30 years.
  - scottious 3mo ago
    It's not that simple. Owning a home is not just a better version of renting. It's a whole different thing with pros and cons. Your mortgage is the lowest amount you'll pay. On top of that you have to manage the upkeep of the house, which costs both time and money. Lots of people go through phases in their lives where they move around and owning just doesn't make sense for a few 1 to 2 year stretches. On the other hand, rent is the highest amount you'll pay. You generally don't have to worry about upkeep, and you're free to move. The commitment is lower and that has real value for certain people at certain stages of their lives. I rented for 6 years in different areas until I figured out what I liked, and then I bought a house. Those 6 years weren't just wasted years. Those were very valuable years where renting really made the most sense.

bluGill 3mo ago

Both also make the assumption that owning a house is good. Renting should be just as good.

an0malous 3mo ago
Why? It’s a position of less security and stability
- Jtarii 3mo ago
  Renting is significantly less risky from a financial standpoint.
- jmye 3mo ago
  [dead]
- footy 3mo ago
  Personally, I like the asset diversification that investing 40% of my income allows. Buying a house at this point in my life would mean a very significant portion of my net worth would be concentrated in one asset, and I'd have less cash flow every month to boot. I don't feel my rental situation in either insecure or unstable. I recently moved (my choice) but previously I lived in the same rental complex for almost a decade. I took advantage of COVID to move to a larger apartment there for cheaper rent, which was a massive advantage I had over friends who owned homes at the time.
CuriouslyC 3mo ago
If houses are capital, renting can never be just as good without de-incentivizing renting via legislation, which in reality will result in a massive rental shortfall, since nobody is going to maintain rental property when they could just invest their money in another asset.
AbsurdCensor 3mo ago
Renting isn't 'good' though in many metrics. Ownership is, and that's what the push should be for, rather than promoting basically a monthly subscription to have a roof over your head.
- TeMPOraL 3mo ago
  Does this correct for mortgage? Because owning through a bank loan still amounts to a monthly subscription.
  - bluGill 3mo ago
    If you live there for 30 years - and don't cash-out-refinance - in 30 years your subscription costs go much lower. However if you rent for less than the mortgage you can invest the difference into something that will grow in value more than the house (which SHOULD track inflation) and in turn end up about the same in the end.
    - Silamoth 3mo ago
      In what world is rent lower than mortgage? Part of the reason my fiancé and I bought a house is because it was cheaper than renting. Not just long-term, but our monthly payment is actually noticeably lower. Of course, we did need to pay a down payment. But if you amortize that over a 30 year mortgage period, we’re still better off buying than renting.
      - AbsurdCensor 3mo ago
        Zero. Like in zero places would rent be less than a mortgage unless somehow the landlord was making 0, and then at that it would be the same price as a mortgage but without the risk of being locked in for 30 years.
- scottious 3mo ago
  It's not that simple. Owning a home is not just a better version of renting. It's a whole different thing with pros and cons. Your mortgage is the lowest amount you'll pay. On top of that you have to manage the upkeep of the house, which costs both time and money. Lots of people go through phases in their lives where they move around and owning just doesn't make sense for a few 1 to 2 year stretches. On the other hand, rent is the highest amount you'll pay. You generally don't have to worry about upkeep, and you're free to move. The commitment is lower and that has real value for certain people at certain stages of their lives. I rented for 6 years in different areas until I figured out what I liked, and then I bought a house. Those 6 years weren't just wasted years. Those were very valuable years where renting really made the most sense.