> For decades part of the logic for buying a house was that, after the down payment, mortgage payments were generally cheaper than renting.
I thought the logic was that, after say 30 years, you own the home you were making mortgage payments on.
My dad explained it to me best. He had bought a single-family house in Homer, Alaska after having moved up there and working in construction for a number of years. He had never owned a home in his life. He got a 30-year fixed loan. He said at the time he was questioning himself as to what he was doing — mortgage payments were something like $400 a month!
"Ten years on, you know what the monthly mortgage was?" he asked me. "$400 a month," was his (obvious) answer. He laughed when he said it because at the time that would have been peanuts for rent.
He wasn't there for the whole of 30 years but had enough equity in the home some years later that when he did sell it he was able to outright purchase land out East End and build a new home on it.
To be sure, times have changed — the market has changed (interest rates have changed of nothing else). But putting money toward ownership still seems like a win.
Certainly over mortgage payments is balanced by risk of unexpected repair and upkeep costs. Property capital gains is balanced by the capital gains you could have from investing in other things instead.
> My dad explained it to me best.
I'm glad you have a found memory of your dad explaining it to you, but this bunch of folk wisdom is killing is killing this country.
Calling them fond memories is not a way I would have characterized them. Regardless, the same strategy regarding home ownership worked for me.
Of course to your point there's no telling if I had been renting and putting every extra dollar into the stock market if I might not have come out ahead. But realistically how many people "invest" in that manner with their income? I can tell you my blue-collar background had not raised me to be investment savvy. (I would have no idea what capital gains were until I was probably in my forties.) I suspect that for most people with similar upbringing an investment in their home is their only significant investment in their lifetime — or it was once that way.
(Who knew they were killing this country.)
I guess that one's out the window now as well then if they can't even afford that.
Unexpected repair and upkeep cost — you're suggesting the landlords just eat that?
(In my case I have learned to do repairs myself. That has been very liberating, FWIW.)
If I am following, your alternative is that we all become renters for life — using any extra money we have to invest in the stock market?
> If I am following, your alternative is that we all become renters for life — using any extra money we have to invest in the stock market?
So yes, given the current situation, that is the mathematically best option for many, many people, far more than people think.
I'm sympathetic though to the idea that asking everyone to be "savvy" is not workable. (Of course, meeting the societal expectation that "unsavvy" home buying also yields nice returns also has major costs.) I think the right answer is probably that the government should think about making sure people have very simple retirement savings vehicles. For example, allowing you to buy more into social security and then get more back.
I think it's really difficult to put a number or dollar figure on the sense of security you'd feel living in a home you own with no mortgage, especially in retirement years.
It's also a little more than that. After having raised a family and seen the nest empty, the wife and I can downsize at any time into a smaller (less expensive) home. The difference in the price of the homes will obviously help in retirement.
Well, it's probably not $1 and also not $1,000,000,000 right?
The point is that people should run the numbers. If they are close enough, sure, go with your gut preference, but if they are way different than you expected, maybe give it a little extra consideration.
A lot of people point out these intangibles to give themselves licensed to not run the numbers, and just assume what they want to be true is true, and I'm sorry, but the argument ("intangible, hard to measure benefits exist" and yes they do) just doesn't support a conclusion that strong.
Don’t be a dick.
Also, economists agree that owning property is still one of the best ways of generating long-term wealth. It’s not folk wisdom. It’s science.
I thought the logic was that, after say 30 years, you own the home you were making mortgage payments on.
My dad explained it to me best. He had bought a single-family house in Homer, Alaska after having moved up there and working in construction for a number of years. He had never owned a home in his life. He got a 30-year fixed loan. He said at the time he was questioning himself as to what he was doing — mortgage payments were something like $400 a month!
"Ten years on, you know what the monthly mortgage was?" he asked me. "$400 a month," was his (obvious) answer. He laughed when he said it because at the time that would have been peanuts for rent.
He wasn't there for the whole of 30 years but had enough equity in the home some years later that when he did sell it he was able to outright purchase land out East End and build a new home on it.
To be sure, times have changed — the market has changed (interest rates have changed of nothing else). But putting money toward ownership still seems like a win.