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.
I was at work the other day and my coworker, asked if I owned a home. I told her "no, I don't need one". I told her, I'm a single man without children and a home would be unnecessary. She said, "don't you want stability in your life?"
I told her there are lots of house poor people with homes "underwater" but since they have homes, that makes them "stable"? No answer from her.
I don't require, need nor do I want to "manage" a lot of space. My apartment works just fine. I guess people still think owning a home makes them special and as if that's the ultimate life acquisition.
Homeowners tend to stay put, and become involved in their neighborhoods. That is stability, for both the homeowner and the neighborhood.
Home owner today are like a ship with their anchor firmly set in the oceans floor. Home ownership today is that just that you have to stay ( doesn't mean a more stably life ).
Home Ownership (as Ohiogirl81 mentioned) has traditionally been looked upon as 'stability' to the community and neighborhood. This is primarily due to the perception (generally true) that 'owners' will take greater interest and care in the community in which they live i.e. they are symbolically 'wed' to the community. How much they really are involved is up to discussion in this day and age as it seems more often that homes for many people are a storage place for their 'stuff'.
Human nature is such that the larger the home the more 'stuff' people get to fill it. This whole push through govt policy toward homeownership is mainly a 'wedding' of the population to the consumption based economic system. One benefit of a smaller living place - if, you don't pay for off site storage someplace, - is, it teaches the invidividual to limit their 'stuff' inventory, i.e. less consumption.
Homes if looked at as an 'investment', are the most illiquid form of asset and are looked upon by municipalities as a target for milking for tax revenues, fees, etc... Homes are a lifestyle choice. Homes make most sense for those with a family and children.
As for persoanl stability which you refer to, depending on lifestyle an apartment can be stability and higher quality of life based upon one's lifestyle choice.
If you can find an apartment that you can enjoy a high quality of life for low total fixed cost (about 20-30% of your net income) and can still save 10% you'll likely be better off (stability wise) in todays economy. As it gives you flexibility. If I recall my real estate financial analysis it usually makes sense to buy a home only if you're going to live someplace for at least 7 years based on how most mortgage loans are structured.
Often overlooked is the ongoing operating, maintenance costs, taxes, higher insurance, utility fees, muni-services fees, time commitments for service needs, etc... Taxes and fees have become more and more onerous especially as communities are fiscally in trouble and look at the homeowner as a sitting ('stable and landed' whether financially secure in house - or not) target. For example, you may have a home decline in value significantly, but the net effect on your taxes will likely be negligible as municipalities come up with all manner of ways to keep THEIR revenues 'stable'.
Since when do so many confuse correlation with causation and make these false premise declarations??
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.