The drop in net worth is caused by people not buying homes? Huh?
Usually the argument against owning your home that is that inflation adjusted returns on real estate are not as attractive as investments in an index fund. In many, and I would argue most scenarios, that doesn’t really matter as the vast majority of people have minimal liquid net worth and renting eats up the cash flow that would allow them to accumulate wealth.
I bought my first and current home when I was 23 and refinanced to a shorter term. I bought near the 2006 peak and due to local market conditions have minimal capital gains, but in the near future will have no debt service costs whatsoever. That means the freedom to make less income, start a business, blow the money or accumulate cash or whatever.
Had I done the smart thing, I would have put 90% (or more, rents rose during the recession) of my current monthly mortgage obligation into rent. To the tune of $300k, allowing for fairly meager savings.
Now if I was sitting on a pile of cash that was a critical mass, and paying rent from my income cash flow, that’s different. But that is a much more rare situation.
Why can’t we become part of the community? I’ve been a renter for a decade now and I think I am more involved in my community via volunteering and local politics than the average person.
Further when I was a kid my single mom rented an apartment — during that time she worked to create a community at our apartment complex. When we moved there barely any one said “hi.” Now, almost a quarter century later she still keeps in touch with many of these old neighbors despite them being scattered all over the U.S.
Renting sucks, we both agree with that. But the trope about renters not caring about the community needs to go — it’s part of the reason apartments are illegal in the majority of California.
Geography determines school placements, what little league your kid plays in, who your local representatives are, etc. I don’t mean to cast tenants in a bad light. It’s just hard to have deep roots if you have to move frequently.
The places that are exceptions have rent stabilization or weak markets. Rental markets always devolve into little geographical cartels where tenants have no leverage. But we live in an era where we pretend it’s a real market and dislike regulatory frameworks.
I've chased jobs for the last 15 years, moving to numerous states, several foreign countries, and for the last 8-9 years, about half a dozen different rental in the same metro area.
I have never been involved in my community, met neighbors, or gotten involved in really anything more than a cordial greetings to people I recognize.
I'd love to buy a house, but even the smallest condo in a decent area is $300k and as a contractor, I still have to often change work locations every year or more often. My commute might increase by an hour or more, each way, if I were unable to move close the work site.
I feel this is common for a lot of people these days, especially as marriage and especially children become less common. I have no incentive to be stuck in one place, and have done well to save a lot of money by being mobile and living frugally, without the trappings of typical suburban life.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moving-for-work-getting-increas...
If the person who owns your house decided to sell it tomorrow, how much protection do you have? Here in the UK, I have effectively none.
On the other hand, if you are renting commercial property for a business and have negotiated a lease, then the lease contract holds.
assume home prices go up 5% and the stock market goes up 7%.
If I want to buy a house for 100k and put 20k as a down-payment and live in the spot for 5 years, I can make 8051$ off the stock market (invest 20k) but my home would have appreciated 27k$.
sure there are some other factors, and maybe my numbers are not right, but I think it gets at what you were saying, an advantage of buying a home is you can make a leveraged investment.
You also are limited to losing everything you put in, while leveraged investments can lose more.
Buying is not a guaranteed win.
It usually is in the long term: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-21/buy-a-...
But yeah, even though in many ways a home is a liability, it has equity you can leverage. In many countries, homeownership conveys other perks. In the usa, homeownership is also a strong sign of being a 'good neighbor' as you have skin in the game, while renters see little reward or penalty for being poor neighbors.
There are of course shades of grey and other factors, but in general, the modern marketing to milennials that homeownership is futile or worthless is partly its own downfall.
It might pay off a bit if you can see it through, especially if you can then move to a lower cost-of-living area, but it's hard to tell 30 years in advance whether you'll be able to keep that commitment and if it will pay off better than investing in index funds or other investments. Certainly some people found out the hard way in 2008 it doesn't always work out that well. In general, it may sometimes slightly beat inflation if you're lucky but under-performs the stock market.
- https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052015/which-has-pe... - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/history-says-home-real-estate-i...
The core of the "bad investment" argument is that the money doesn't necessarily all get spent either way.
renters see little reward or penalty for being poor neighbors
"We have chosen not to renew your lease."
Yes but that is part of the problem with the argument: it basically assumes perfectly rational actors who never cheat contributing to their index fund so they can go do/buy whatever. It’s a lot harder to just not pay your mortgage one month.