Bozeman cost of living ... (Great Falls: rentals, insurance, mortgage)

[markintosh]

To get back on topic... I'm sorry, but rents in Bozeman are still cheaper that what it would take to buy, unless you have a sizable downpayment. Having moved here from South Carolina, I find that only housing seems to be significantly higher in terms of COL. Food, utilities, etc. seem comparable. And the food quality here is much, much better.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by markintosh

To get back on topic... I'm sorry, but rents in Bozeman are still cheaper that what it would take to buy, unless you have a sizable downpayment. Having moved here from South Carolina, I find that only housing seems to be significantly higher in terms of COL. Food, utilities, etc. seem comparable. And the food quality here is much, much better.

Yep... rent doesn't require that 20% down payment, for starters. If you can get into an old small-town house priced under $40k at 3% down, that can be cheaper than rent. But you won't find those in Bozeman anymore!

Second... as a homeowner, I don't just make 12 mortgage payments. I also have property tax and insurance that I'm required to pay, which presently equates to SIX extra mortgage payments!!

[VeganStar]

The cost of living in Bozeman is considered high because of the cost of buying a home here is outrageous. However, rentals are still pretty affordable. It's very possible to find rentals as cheap as $250-$350/month for a room with or without utilities. The cold season is longer than you might expect and thus you will have to pay for more heat. But other than that, renting in Bozeman is fairy affordable... Food prices are the same as everywhere else. You won't find high cost food prices here like in Hawaii.

Originally Posted by electric_lady

I have some friends who have offered me a room in their rented house for $275 a month. Even if I make $9, I would be able to afford this and all my food and gas. This, to me, seems cheap. Especially compared with other desireable mountain cities. Not to mention being a college town - in Ann Arbor, Mich. for example, I'd be looking at at least $600 for my own room, not making any more money than in Montana.
So, I guess I'm wondering why is the cost of living considered to be so high in Bozeman?
Is food and gas really THAT much more expensive than the average American city? I know it's somewhat remote, but, can anyone give me an idea here? Are we talking like $5 for milk or something? What gives?

[romath]

Originally Posted by VeganStar

The cost of living in Bozeman is considered high because of the cost of buying a home here is outrageous. However, rentals are still pretty affordable. It's very possible to find rentals as cheap as $250-$350/month for a room with or without utilities. The cold season is longer than you might expect and thus you will have to pay for more heat. But other than that, renting in Bozeman is fairy affordable... Food prices are the same as everywhere else. You won't find high cost food prices here like in Hawaii.

Excuse me? If buying is high and rent is low, that means the rest of the cost of living is lower than the national average here. Good luck trying to provide evidence for that. Actually, rent *seems* low because landlords have divided up houses to rent them separately, and lots of people (non students) with extra room take on a renter or two just to get by, since wages are so low here. Which gets to the real point: relative to wages, the cost of living here is extraordinarily high.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by romath

Excuse me? If buying is high and rent is low, that means the rest of the cost of living is lower than the national average here. Good luck trying to provide evidence for that. Actually, rent *seems* low because landlords have divided up houses to rent them separately, and lots of people (non students) with extra room take on a renter or two just to get by, since wages are so low here. Which gets to the real point: relative to wages, the cost of living here is extraordinarily high.

And I'd guess a lot of those rentals have been owned by the same people for decades, so they aren't obligated to a huge mortgage and can price 'em to keep the apartments full, rather than as RE-spiked loan payments dictate. Which means some older student rentals may be artificially low-priced, up to whatever the market will bear. This is, as you imply, not an accurate reflection of the rest of the cost of living, nor will rentals be an accurate gauge until all have been "turned over" and are on current mortgages at current prices. Then you'll see what rent REALLY costs -- since it generally needs to be greater than the cost of buying and maintaining the property.

[TypicalCalifornian]

I may be missing a social element to these comparison questions re: weather, RE, COL etc. but I'd suggest published data readily available.

Cost of living: Compare prices in two cities - CNNMoney.com

[romath]

Originally Posted by Reziac

And I'd guess a lot of those rentals have been owned by the same people for decades, so they aren't obligated to a huge mortgage and can price 'em to keep the apartments full, rather than as RE-spiked loan payments dictate. Which means some older student rentals may be artificially low-priced, up to whatever the market will bear. This is, as you imply, not an accurate reflection of the rest of the cost of living, nor will rentals be an accurate gauge until all have been "turned over" and are on current mortgages at current prices. Then you'll see what rent REALLY costs -- since it generally needs to be greater than the cost of buying and maintaining the property.

Nicely put.

I'm not seeing it now, but the email I got says electric lady wrote, "I have some friends who have offered me a room in their rented house for $275 a month. Even if I make $9, I would be able to afford this and all my food and gas. This, to me, seems cheap."

Have to love people who generalize from their individual spartan existence to the rest of us.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by romath

I'm not seeing it now, but the email I got says electric lady wrote, "I have some friends who have offered me a room in their rented house for $275 a month. Even if I make $9, I would be able to afford this and all my food and gas. This, to me, seems cheap."

Have to love people who generalize from their individual spartan existence to the rest of us.

It's the first post. And I remember being young and making do on very little and thinking it was perfectly fine... after all "making do on nothing much" gave me the ability to be independent. In short, it's a Youth thing. Nothing wrong with it, since the ability to be happy on what you've got is a useful skill, but as you say it makes a poor generalization.

You get a little older and you start to realise that life is easier if you're not always making do, and a lot of stuff you used to do for free is no longer worth doing if you don't make money at it. And that includes owning rental property -- who does that to lose money, or break even?? If that's all it's worth, why bother?

Renters should remember that if rental properties fail to make a profit, pretty soon there won't be anywhere to rent, cuz no one will invest in 'em.

======

My original observation on the quintessential difference between Youth and Old Age:

Youth: Why should I pay someone else to do that when I can do it myself?

Old Age: Why should I do that myself when I can pay someone else to do it?

[romath]

Excuse me, I forgot: Younger people don't get married, have kids, have medical needs, car insurance and repairs, have need to save, and don't mind living in one or two rented rooms. Thus, getting by on $9/hr is no big deal.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by romath

Excuse me, I forgot: Younger people don't get married, have kids, have medical needs, car insurance and repairs, have need to save, and don't mind living in one or two rented rooms. Thus, getting by on $9/hr is no big deal.

It's more that they don't have enough experience of actually having those needs to feel squeezed when getting by on $9/hour. A few years supporting kids and a car tends to cure that.

Tho there are always a few lucky souls who seem to have few needs, and are happy living in the most minimal circumstances for their entire lives. It does save a lot of complications that most folks have to deal with... so are they wrong to be happy with very little? Probably not.

But as was said above, it makes a poor generalization, since it doesn't work for average folks with typical family concerns.

BTW I've lived in such minimal circumstances, and did so for many years. My priorities were elsewhere, and making do with very little didn't seem like a bad thing at the time. And life was a lot simpler when I didn't have to plan for a mortgage and property tax and insurance and repairs and all the other baggage of a more-typical lifestyle.