• @goetzit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    157 months ago

    Not everyone, but the vast majority of everyone, and even those who don’t want to buy would still probably be better off with owning instead of renting.

    “Going a few hundred grand in debt to buy a non-liquid asset” a house is probably the best asset you could buy for yourself, and also, do you think you’re saving money renting? Do you think a landlord is losing money on his mortgage? You’re covering the mortgage anyway, and then a premium for not having it in your name.

    • @goldenbough@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -57 months ago

      Renting over owning is a more stable outlay (no “surprise, you need a new water heater” expenses for renters) and it gives flexibility for moving with any kind of frequency. I agree that home ownership should be more attainable and affordable, but it’s not a clean win 100% of the time for everyone.

      • @Arbiter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        117 months ago

        You’re still paying for the water heater, the expense is just hidden over long term inflated rent prices.

        • @goldenbough@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Yes, a buffer built into the rental price (“inflated” is a loaded term; rents can be inflated, but a rental price set to cover mortgage and amortized expenses isn’t by definition inflated), but it’s still stable.

      • lad
        link
        fedilink
        17 months ago

        Yeah, also way more stable in countries where you are not protected by the law and may be told get outta the property you’re renting less than a month in advance. And in countries where you’re protected, the landlord will usually get in your arse checking if you’re a fraud, this makes renting quite a bit more of a problem.