Current Homes For Sale? (Pittsburgh, Erie: renters, insurance, transfer)

[ny789987]

Even if you own a modest home outright here, the taxes and hidden maintenance issues will eat you alive. Good luck surviving on that minimum wage job when the basement starts leaking, there is mine subsistence, or the town inspector demands out of the blue that you reroute an underground sewage pipe.

[guy2073]

Originally Posted by ny789987

Even if you own a modest home outright here, the taxes and hidden maintenance issues will eat you alive. Good luck surviving on that minimum wage job when the basement starts leaking, there is mine subsistence, or the town inspector demands out of the blue that you reroute an underground sewage pipe.

How many people own a house and work a minimum wage job?

[Knepper3]

Likely very very few. Even if you could afford it based on min wage you either need to save up 30k or find someone to make a loan on a 30k home to a min wage earner who also happens to somehow have built up good credit.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by Knepper3

No, you are comparing to completely different commodities. Cars will always decline over time, it is simply personal property and most people do not technically need a car. Everyone needs a place to live, the house could decline over time if you simply did nothing to care for it just as a car but there is a tangible piece of property sitting under that home.


The reason housing should appreciate is simply supply and demand, unlike cars you can not make more land. Once it is gone it's gone, over time less land means what you have is more valuable.

Land only appreciates if more than one person wants that land in the future, otherwise cars and houses are very comparable. Everyone may need a place to live, but for all practical purposes, everyone also needs transport. You can rent an apartment just like you can take the bus, but buying a physical structure like a single family is like buying a private car. The house (structure) and car both depreciate based on the wear and tear availability of comparable items. Land is a wild card, but only in growing areas, and the option to rent structures to others, there isn’t really a good small business equivalent renting cars (liability too high and the possibility that the product disappears).

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Land only appreciates if more than one person wants that land in the future, otherwise cars and houses are very comparable. Everyone may need a place to live, but for all practical purposes, everyone also needs transport. You can rent an apartment just like you can take the bus, but buying a physical structure like a single family is like buying a private car. The house (structure) and car both depreciate based on the wear and tear availability of comparable items. Land is a wild card, but only in growing areas, and the option to rent structures to others, there isn’t really a good small business equivalent renting cars (liability too high and the possibility that the product disappears).

In Japan, for various reasons, houses are viewed as being like cars. Land itself may appreciate or depreciate in value depending upon whether it's in a rural area with a declining population or an urban area seeing in-migration. But the housing on land depreciates in value to essentially nothing within a dozen or so years. Thus, whenever someone buys property in Japan, they typically knock down the existing house and build a new one.

The good thing about this system is, when coupled with Japan's very top-down zoning system (zoning is set by the federal government - there are only, IIRC 14 zones nationwide) there really isn't any NIMBYism. No one expects their house to have any value after they sell, so they don't care if their neighbor's house is knocked down and replaced with a mini-apartment building. The downside is the idea of historical preservation is completely culturally alien to the Japanese. They see no value in old houses whatsoever.

[trackstar13]

Pittsburgh is one of those real estate markets where it is almost impossible to lose if you own. The image below and article link demonstrate that in Pittsburgh it is significantly cheaper to own than rent. Consequently, if you own a house in Pittsburgh you are typically saving money every month and even if you need to move in a down market you should be able to rent your house for profit. It looks like I can't get the image to load, but it is a graph showing that Pittsburgh has the sixth highest rent vs. owning disparity for the largest 33 U.S. cities.



https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/17-...erage-own-rent

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by Twenty Years in the Burgh

Attachment 198565Attachment 198561

This is the upstairs bath and half baths. Paul, if you're looking for a resource to match the tile in your vintage bath, check out the Retrorenovation website. There's a ton of information there--I found period appropriate tile for my powder room through the site.

looks familiar! haha although "uglier" colors. i like the black and white a lot! thank you for the resource. funny how standard the design was during that time. not like it was cheap either probably.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by trackstar13

Pittsburgh is one of those real estate markets where it is almost impossible to lose if you own. The image below and article link demonstrate that in Pittsburgh it is significantly cheaper to own than rent. Consequently, if you own a house in Pittsburgh you are typically saving money every month and even if you need to move in a down market you should be able to rent your house for profit. It looks like I can't get the image to load, but it is a graph showing that Pittsburgh has the sixth highest rent vs. owning disparity for the largest 33 U.S. cities.



https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/17-...erage-own-rent

this may be giving the wrong picture. it really isn't that big of a difference, just mostly better to buy. not almost impossible though at all.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

this may be giving the wrong picture. it really isn't that big of a difference, just mostly better to buy. not almost impossible though at all.

I can see your point, especially if someone has an interest only mortgage or spends beyond their means and does not have the money to properly maintain the house. My point was that Pittsburgh is one of the major cities in the U.S. where it is significantly cheaper to own than rent and homeowners in Pittsburgh can take advantage of this benefit immediately in terms of monthly savings and in the long term due to appreciation or rental income. This is not the case in all places and this is definitely an issue that should be discussed/considered when looking at the rent vs. own argument in Pittsburgh.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by trackstar13

I can see your point, especially if someone has an interest only mortgage or spends beyond their means and does not have the money to properly maintain the house. My point was that Pittsburgh is one of the major cities in the U.S. where it is significantly cheaper to own than rent and homeowners in Pittsburgh can take advantage of this benefit immediately in terms of monthly savings and in the long term due to appreciation or rental income. This is not the case in all places and this is definitely an issue that should be discussed/considered when looking at the rent vs. own argument in Pittsburgh.

Sure, if you are buying a house in Penn Hills and renting in Shadyside.