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.
So in other words, the average renter in the United States most likely does not enjoy the same situation you have where rent increases have been minimal and easy to project for many years, allowing you to invest far more than the average person could have.
So in other words, the average renter in the United States most likely does not enjoy the same situation you have where rent increases have been minimal and easy to project for many years, allowing you to invest far more than the average person could have.
The average renter is likely a renter because they lack the resources to buy once you get out of the cities .
You are also misled thinking rents are all low on stabilized apartments....some may be in less desirable buildings and areas ..but nice stuff is at market or very close .you can get all the rent stabilized apartments you want in our building ..they are 2500 a month plus parking spots at 200 each.
My wife is here 40 years ..we are at 2300 plus 200 for parking spot.
Right now they are giving a month free for new renters so in actuality that is less then we pay
So in other words, the average renter in the United States most likely does not enjoy the same situation you have where rent increases have been minimal and easy to project for many years, allowing you to invest far more than the average person could have.
The problem is that the blanket statements made here are made as if they apply to all and those statements are not going to apply to all ..especially to those who are selling homes in retirement and have a big pile of cash and now have to decide whether to buy or rent and invest ...
That is a very real question many have so the answer is noooooo there is no one way that is best ..
Lower housing costs and the appreciation in the home may not match higher housing costs with much greater return on that money if one invests elsewhere and rents ....
Many also will be renting much smaller places or apartments once the kids are out .
The problem is that the blanket statements made here are made as if they apply to all and those statements are not going to apply to all ..especially to those who are selling homes in retirement and have a big pile of cash and now have to decide whether to buy or rent and invest ...
That is a very real question many have so the answer is noooooo there is no one way that is best ..
Lower housing costs and the appreciation in the home may not match higher housing costs with much greater return on that money...
I agree with you that people over 60 or so, flush with home sale cash, have a serious decision to make. Buying might not be worth it at that point. But even then, a smart purchase can appreciate a lot in the 15-20 years that a 60 year old should have left.
I agree with you that people over 60 or so, flush with home sale cash, have a serious decision to make. Buying might not be worth it at that point. But even then, a smart purchase can appreciate a lot in the 15-20 years that a 60 year old should have left.
But that appreciation can be well below other investments ... I sold my house about 15 years ago for 330k in kew garden hills .....today it’s 900k ......however that money made us quite a few multiple 7 figures the last 15 years elsewhere
So depending if one is an investor or not they have a decision to make...
Our 2nd home we had in pa Is just working it’s way back to what we sold it for in 2012 which is also what we paid in 2007 .so the poconos saw little appreciation and in fact fell Over the years as until covid the poconos fell out of favor.
Remember costs are very different for someone who bought 20 years ago compared to someone buying today in a desirable area so outcomes and costs are going to be very different.
The coop apartment my ex wife lives in cost us 1200 a month back in 1987 ...best rent I could get was 850 and we were thrilled to get an 8-1/4% mortgage .
Today she lives there for under 700 a month .
Today that apartment rents for 1800 -1900 a month but it costs over 200k for an apartMent so again it will take years to where rent and maintenance are profitable for a new buyer
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-11-2021 at 05:57 PM..
It will be nice here in a few years when my home is paid off, I will have all that money to do whatever with. If I was renting, that rent would be continuing forever. Aside from having the home with no mortgage, I have the equity in it, over double from what I paid, sitting around $2.2 million now. If I was renting, the owner would not only be paying off the mortgage with the rent, but also have all the equity, and I would still be having to make the rent.
You show no understanding of opportunity cost in your original post. Let me go back to the basics.
This is like arguing if I buy this candy, I would have this candy. If I don't buy this candy, I have no candy. Have the candy is better than no candy, thus buying the candy is better than not buying the candy.
This above is a stupid argument because you are only looking at having the candy vs no candy, while ignoring the money you spent on the candy. If you don't buy the candy, you can spend the same amount of money on something else.
In the above quote my you, if you want to incorporate opportunity cost, it would be something like this:
If I was renting, I would have to make the rent, but I would have other investmets which I won't have if I spent my capital on the house instead. Depends on what my other investmets are, it may generate return more or less than the rent I am paying. So I may be better or or worse off as a renter vs a buyer of a house.
Not owning does not automatically mean apartment living. Since my divorce and loss of my house, I have been a serial renter of houses. This can be a bit tricky, as nicer houses tend to be sold after a few years. Or the owner wants to move back in.
Also, home owners seem to think they will profit from renting, when this isn't usually the case, all things considered. The profit is in the appreciation. When I had to sell my house, I considered renting to keep it, and the realtors said forget it.
I got a good deal on a nice place in SoCal, and the (nice guy) owner kept jacking up the rent as he felt he was losing money. This made for an annual headache and stress, and I finally had to move out due to the escalating cost. I am in a big nicer old home now and fingers crossed I'll be staying a while.
My money is in the stock market and I would never own again, partly due to my age and partly because I like the freedom of renting.
I suppose the nice thing about owning, is that you can pay it off. Then, it's just upkeep and taxes (and other ancillary costs.)
Once you have no payments, it DOES open up other choices...
Renters never "pay it off" so they're robbed of the feeling of accomplishment.
That's gotta be a real bummer. Work your whole life, and still get spit on by a landlord...always wanting more.
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.
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.
