this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
285 points (98.0% liked)

News

23353 readers
3123 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

The article talks a lot about mortgages. How does the math work if you pay in full at the time of purchase?

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

you divide the amount of money that it costs by the amount of dollars you would pay to rent something like that per month and then figure that's how long it'll take for you to look at a duck instead of a chicken

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Then add a few years, since you'll be the one paying to replace wear items like roof, carpets, and appliances.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

That's true in general. And if you assume a perfectly efficient market, yes, renting would never be cheaper than buying. On the other hand, if markets were perfectly efficient, no company would ever be able to make a profit at all.

One market distortion is that in certain times, people will actually pay a premium for renting. People aren't perfectly rational actors. Or moreover, they prioritize things beyond just simple cost. Even if buying is more expensive that renting, all costs considered, often people will pay more just for the stability and certainty that comes with home ownership.

The housing market is also distorted by all the present owners with locked-in 30-year mortgages. This has suppressed the supply of existing homes on the market. Rental companies don't get access to federally-subsidized 30 year mortgages, so they are less subject to this interest rate lock-in.

I pointed out a few things, but these are a few of many. The key thing to realize is that housing is highly illiquid, and its production, ownership, and sale is heavily regulated, taxed, and subsidized. It's a heavily regulated market. This means that the market will not always follow basic econ 101 behavior. Yes, in theory, rentals will include all costs. But that is rarely the case.

In fact, in a perfectly efficient market, it's likely that neither buying nor renting would be beneficial. If everyone acted perfectly rationally all the time, the cost of renting would exactly equal the cost of buying. And in that world, buying would never be worth it, simply because it wouldn't be worth the extra hassle to safe not a single penny.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

insurance and property taxes and a very large HOA fee that looks almost like a rent payment if you're in a good city

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 4 hours ago

Not the scenario this article talks about. Most people need mortgages, especially first time buyers.

[–] rollerbang@lemmy.world 11 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

I might still not understand but... Landlords have to pay insurance as well. Why would they be the exception. They have all the same costs and also want to make a profit. How can rent be cheaper then?

[–] exasperation@lemm.ee 2 points 29 minutes ago

Two things: first, landlords aren't entitled to a profit, and second, landlord input costs might be completely different from an owner resident.

On the first point, if the landlord's costs are $2000/month, and the market rent for that unit is $1900/month, the landlord would rather lose $100/month on a lease than lose $2000/month on a vacant property.

On the second, it might be that the landlord bought the place when it was much cheaper, or has a much lower interest rate than what is available today. So if the landlord's costs are $2000/month for a property that would now cost $4000/month at today's purchase prices and interest rates, but can rent for $3000/month at a profit to himself.

Similarly, some volume landlords can spread certain costs around and not pay nearly as much as an owner resident. It might cost $1200 to hire a plumber to do a 6-hour job, but it also might cost $150 to simply have a plumber on the payroll to do that job, if you've got enough steady work that it's cheaper to have him around.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Because markets aren't perfectly rational. If they were perfectly efficient, no company would ever be able to make a profit at all. But we don't live in that perfect Econ 101 world, and companies can make profits because inefficiencies exist in the economy. As such, sometimes rent can be more expensive than owning.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Because if you buy a house, it's just you and the bank, so you need to cover the banks risk for you as an individual, meaning higher interest rates. Larger purchases, or a group of houses are covered by different loan types, flexible rates at for example international rated plus half a point.. and that is mich cheaper. The rate might fluctuate.. but if the government strongarms the fed to keep the loans practically free, companies borrow for free plus half a point. And that is a lot of difference.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 7 hours ago

Also, the landlord is dropping that money into an asset that often appreciates in value. As long as they otherwise have cashflow to cover it, they can afford to "lose" money each month and make a big payday when they sell it.

[–] Tilgare@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

Because on average, I imagine very few rental homes are brand new constructions/purchases so their mortgage is a couple years old and lower than if someone bought that same home today.

[–] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 15 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

Highly dependent on where one lives I guess. My friend just rented a new apartment and his rent is over double what my mortage payments are. That's also money he is never getting back where as in my case my house is paid in about 15 years after which I own the damn thing and the monthly mortage payment drops off entirely. Excluding mortage, the montly cost of owning my house is 275€ which includes water and electricity.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 8 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Excluding mortage, the montly cost of owning my house is 275€ which includes water and electricity.

That's also excluding regular maintenance or emergency repairs that a landlord would be (often reluctantly) responsible for. It is also possible to do big, expensive, necessary renovations on a house and have it hardly affect the value at all.

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

It is also possible to do big, expensive, necessary renovations on a house and have it hardly affect the value at all.

Isn't this kind of irrelevant unless you're a house flipper? If you own a house and make renovations to it, it is because you find some practical value in it.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

No, increasing the value of your home is one way to get out of PMI payments. And it also helps if you get a reverse mortgage.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

A house flipper would do everything they can to avoid having to do something like this. It's primarily a normal home owner who would have to shell out for this.

Ex. when I bought my house, they told me the roof had recently been redone. I didn't know enough about it, but the pre-inspection didn't see any issues. Fast forward a year later we have someone look at it because it isn't looking right in some places. Turns out it's a very old "torchdown" roof, and by "redone" the previous owners had someone spray it with a silvercoat paint. This is something you do maybe 2-3 times in the life of this kind of roof. The inspector said there were at least 7 layers of paint, the roof itself was way past its recommended lifetime, and if there were any issues it would be impossible to know without taking the whole roof off. They said we could just wait until we have a leak, and then get it replaced, but (given several weather and money factors involved) we chose to go ahead, bite the bullet, and have a new roof installed. This was enormously expensive, but if I were to put the house on the market right after it was done, the state of the roof was already priced in. If someone wanted to pay $X a year ago thinking the roof was already recently "redone", me getting it actually redone isn't going to move that needle for anyone. It was purely for my peace of mind as the home owner who wants to continue living here. Sure that has value to me, but no tangible value that I can use to justify the purchase vs renting. I could have rented in this place for well over a year for the price of that roof.

A house flipper would have said "well, let's try to get rid of this thing before that becomes a problem for us to worry about, shall we?"

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

The best thing you can do to improve the value of your house is granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. The next best thing is some kind of fancy bathroom. Finally, a fresh coat of beige paint and moving out almost all of your stuff is a big help.

[–] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 points 9 hours ago

My mortage payments for one year would cover all maintenance I've done to the house during the 8 years I've lived here including an entire bathroom remodel. Obviously someone less handy would need to hire someone to do the jobs I've done myself so that helps a little with the costs, but still. The maintenance costs for my house aren't even in the top 5 expenses I have.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›