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.
The age differences alone,on this board mean there can be a wide variety of the implied/assumed reasonings about renting vs ownership.
Exactly, not to mention the area you live. Don't own on Oahu, San Fran, Seattle, NYC? Not as big of an issue.
At the next financial downturn we could be back to homeowner's being underwater, etc.
Ownership is just an indicator, not a sign of wealth or stability.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
My point was that exceptions are obvious and should not need to be pointed out.
Your stats below are dependent on changing home values -- correction: changing home prices (which do not necessarily reflect value). They are therefore painting with too-broad brush strokes, as housing markets are very localized. I can guarantee you renters in my neck of the woods have a greater net worth than owners in most other parts of the country. Of course, based on your stats, renters within my area should be less wealthy than homeowners in the same area, however, as originally noted, there are (many) exceptions.
But most important, you cite a source no rational person would rely on to make a point. Where did the $231,400 (owners) and $5,500 (renter) numbers come from? (I'm guessing they pulled it out of their a$$es.) Why was any context omitted? Looks to me like they are providing a narrow filter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
What's your point? That there are exceptions? No sht, sherlock. An exception to a rule doesn't negate the rule. As I said, people apply filters to narrow the field because there isn't time or desire to deeply evaluate many candidates to find that needle in a haystack exception. The aggregate data is clear.
Every three years, the Federal Reserve conducts their Survey of Consumer Finances in which they collect data across all economic and social groups. Their latest survey data, covering 2013-2016 was recently released.
The study revealed that the median net worth of a homeowner was $231,400 – a 15% increase since 2013. At the same time, the median net worth of renters decreased by 5% ($5,200 today compared to $5,500 in 2013).
These numbers reveal that the net worth of a homeowner is over 44 times greater than that of a renter.
The age differences alone,on this board mean there can be a wide variety of the implied/assumed reasonings about renting vs ownership.
This is a low cost area. Aside from certain hot pockets, the average property owner here will be doing will to see property appreciation keep up with general inflation.
If you buy in much of the county areas, which are zoned to worse schools, it might take awhile to sell.
Someone on here said "the ability" to own a house. I agree. I want a woman who doesn't live paycheck to paycheck and at least has some savings and a decent career. I've had the ability to own a house since my 20's, but haven't always owned one. That has likely been a mistake. Now I own again, but I really don't see it making one bit of difference where I live.
No, I know what they actually have (one big aspect of my work is Finance).
Most are business owners who, given a choice between putting money into a house or reinvesting in their business, they chose the business. And for them, it makes great sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oh-eve
I think you just see renters spend more money while homeowners have their "wealth" invested in their home.
I personally think homeowners are more financially savvy but I understand the thought of people not wanting to date homeowners because they are "stuck" in their house. A lot of people want to date and then find a place together and not move into someone's house that's already furnished and decorated. I get that. You don't want to fall in love with someone who has a house you do not like and who is determined to stay there. You have to feel at home, too.
Mostly older; some retired some not. Others young professionals who are overpaid and transitory (common in the DC-Metro area). Oddly, very few middle aged...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman
Age range of the renters vs the homeowners? You talking the older crowd who's about to retire? Young professionals? Middle age?
What's funny is that I have known a few people over the years who were quite miserly, even though they did not need to be. Can't recall their success with women though but am certain it could not have been good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
If you want to create the most wealth, you rent a small, sketchy apartment with one LED lightbulb, eat beans & rice, library card as entertainment, take public transportation or drive an economy car, and invest most of your net pay in the market. Of course, that brands you as a miser and you’ll have a tough time attracting women.
There’s a middle ground in all of this. Most grownups save and invest for their future while spending some of their discretionary income on things that improve their quality of life. Better a renter than overextended on a leased luxury car and a mortgage for a big plastic box house with cheap lawn furniture in the living room and a mattress on the floor in the bedroom.
This is a low cost area. Aside from certain hot pockets, the average property owner here will be doing will to see property appreciation keep up with general inflation.
If you buy in much of the county areas, which are zoned to worse schools, it might take awhile to sell.
The trick with your area is to buy something that would interest someone looking to move to or vacation in the mountains. Buying a cracker box in a downscale neighborhood will do nothing for your investment. Especially since you tend to think of your time these as short term, get a house you can make money on in a couple of years. Owning a home is like a part-time job that pays reasonably well.
Potential partners respect that. Sitting in your butt in an apartment is pretty unimaginative.
The trick with your area is to buy something that would interest someone looking to move to or vacation in the mountains. Buying a cracker box in a downscale neighborhood will do nothing for your investment. Especially since you tend to think of your time these as short term, get a house you can make money on in a couple of years. Owning a home is like a part-time job that pays reasonably well.
Potential partners respect that. Sitting in your butt in an apartment is pretty unimaginative.
From the more scenic areas that aren't completely destitute, you're looking at a 45 minute or more commute. This isn't Gatlinburg that gets a lot of tourist traffic.
I don't care if my partner has a home or not, but I would want him to be financially solvent at least. As for myself, I can afford a home but have been living in the apartment above the store I bought here in town 18 months ago with my friend and business partner. Rather than pay rent, I put money into fixing it up. I've become quite the handywoman!
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.
