Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2014, 10:25 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,458,643 times
Reputation: 9074

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Garbage. Most homeowners do NOT inherit their homes (despite your insistence that most folks are "subsidy kids", whatever that is). Most homeowners started out renting. Then they purchased.

So tell me again how homeownership is not scalable, and renters can't buy homes based on their income?

Most homeowners today are couples; the homeownership rate is much higher for married couples than for singles. If I recall correctly 70+ percent of married couples own, and 50 percent of singles own.

Homwownership is not scalable because in general, singles don't have the option of buying half as much home as a couple.

e.g. if the median home is hypothetically 3BR 1200 sq ft on 8000 sq ft land singles don't have the option (due to zoning and various minimum size requirements) of purchasing 1BR 600 sq ft on 4000 sq ft land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2014, 10:36 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,637,791 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Most homeowners today are couples; the homeownership rate is much higher for married couples than for singles. If I recall correctly 70+ percent of married couples own, and 50 percent of singles own.

Homwownership is not scalable because in general, singles don't have the option of buying half as much home as a couple.

e.g. if the median home is hypothetically 3BR 1200 sq ft on 8000 sq ft land singles don't have the option (due to zoning and various minimum size requirements) of purchasing 1BR 600 sq ft on 4000 sq ft land.
Of course singles have options for small homes. I plan to buy a condo for my last home myself. A 1 bedroom condo costs substantially less than a 1200 sq ft sfh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2014, 11:41 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,458,643 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
Of course singles have options for small homes. I plan to buy a condo for my last home myself. A 1 bedroom condo costs substantially less than a 1200 sq ft sfh.

Do you plan to pay cash or get a mortgage? Many affordable condos are in no-fund zones where lenders will not finance them, making them unavailable for purchase by the vast majority of renters.

Which in effect makes them unaffordable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2014, 12:28 AM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,637,791 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Do you plan to pay cash or get a mortgage? Many affordable condos are in no-fund zones where lenders will not finance them, making them unavailable for purchase by the vast majority of renters.

Which in effect makes them unaffordable.
So look at condos not located in a "no-fund zone".

If I were walking down a sidewalk and encountered a blade of grass lying on the cement, I would not let it stop me from going where I wanted to go. I would not in any way find it to be an insurmountable obstacle. I would certainly not just stand there, year after year, wringing my hands and whimpering "but there is a blade of grass in my way!".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2014, 12:54 AM
 
30,897 posts, read 36,958,653 times
Reputation: 34526
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
And coming out ahead by renting and investing the difference is moot for most renters because it requires INVESTIBLE INCOME
Just because YOU have little to no investible income doesn't mean all renters are in the same position.

Yes, renters generally have lower incomes, but as with any group, there is a wide range of income brackets represented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2014, 01:02 AM
 
30,897 posts, read 36,958,653 times
Reputation: 34526
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny View Post
Bull Hockey. That sounds like the research that was supposed to show that employees did not respond to pay raises. They were supposed to want recognition instead. Every business had plaques for the employees of the month and employees of the year.

I always had the expenses covered but I sure wanted a vacation trip that was more than a tent in the woods. I still remember the bigger car loan to afford a car with a moon roof and a better stereo. I enjoyed both for a great many years until the poor car reached a couple hundred thousand miles and wore out. My wife and I go out to dinner once or maybe even twice in a month. The cheapie Thai or Chinese restaurants are getting kinda old. It absolutely makes up happy to be able to splurge on something better. Having money may not make you happy but it sure helps. We have a group trip including a nice dinner for New Years. Being more than a notch or two above poverty sure helps. I spent years and years getting by. It was no damn fun to be short of money for the extras.
I am so done arguing about this.

Perhaps I should have added that having savings (vs. spending everything one has) makes people happier because it reduces stress and increases one's sense of control...So I'm not saying just live on a notch or two above povety level income and that's good enough. I'm saying material goods just don't make people happier beyond a certain point....and that point is a lot lower that most people assume....so if your income is getting your most basic needs met, then one should take the surplus and save/invest it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2014, 01:06 AM
 
30,897 posts, read 36,958,653 times
Reputation: 34526
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Well duh homeownership is not scalable in this country (due to government interference) which means most renters cannot buy a home on their own income alone which guarantees the owner population will be skewed toward couples and widows.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the "duh" comment was annoyingly snarky.

I am personally tired of hearing you beat the drum on CD about tiny houses, having no income, etc. (and I know I'm not the only one). It would be better if you actually did something constructive, rather than beat the same few dead horses over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again on every thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2014, 01:13 AM
 
30,897 posts, read 36,958,653 times
Reputation: 34526
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoutboy View Post
I agree. I think that renting is actually superior to home ownership if one's goal is financial independence/wealth.
Well, it most definitely does depend on where you live. In high cost real estate markets, it usually makes more sense to rent the smallest place you can tolerate and save/invest the difference.

The thing that's really important, whether you rent or own, is your total housing cost as a percent of your income. For renters, this is an easy thing to calculate. For homeowners, maintenance, taxes & other expenses are harder to pin down...partly because homeowners conveniently ignore those unexpected expenses when extolling the joys of home ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoutboy View Post
But the key is that you have to aggressively invest. Like you say, a lot of renters just end up spending what they should be investing.
I don't think one has to invest super aggressively. No, you can't put it all, or even most of it, in savings accounts and CDs. But a 60% stock 40% bond mix is aggressive enough for most people. The key is your savings rate. Of course, the lower your housing costs, the higher your savings rate can be. The higher your savings rate, the less dependent you are on a high rate of compounding as well....so a high savings rate wins a lot of different ways.

My sister is one of those stereotypical renters who invests as an afterthought and has a moderate to low savings rate. Drives. Me. Crazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2014, 01:30 AM
 
1,855 posts, read 3,609,960 times
Reputation: 2151
By 'aggressively', I was referring to making a hard, sustained effort rather than allocation type; I should've worded it differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Well, it most definitely does depend on where you live. In high cost real estate markets, it usually makes more sense to rent the smallest place you can tolerate and save/invest the difference.

The thing that's really important, whether you rent or own, is your total housing cost as a percent of your income. For renters, this is an easy thing to calculate. For homeowners, maintenance, taxes & other expenses are harder to pin down...partly because homeowners conveniently ignore those unexpected expenses when extolling the joys of home ownership.



I don't think one has to invest super aggressively. No, you can't put it all, or even most of it, in savings accounts and CDs. But a 60% stock 40% bond mix is aggressive enough for most people. The key is your savings rate. Of course, the lower your housing costs, the higher your savings rate can be. The higher your savings rate, the less dependent you are on a high rate of compounding as well....so a high savings rate wins a lot of different ways.

My sister is one of those stereotypical renters who invests as an afterthought and has a moderate to low savings rate. Drives. Me. Crazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2014, 03:20 AM
 
30,897 posts, read 36,958,653 times
Reputation: 34526
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoutboy View Post
By 'aggressively', I was referring to making a hard, sustained effort rather than allocation type; I should've worded it differently.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top