Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by floppydisk 3781 days ago
The basic premise behind that idea is rents are (historically were) cheaper than a mortgage so you could take the mortgage-rent delta, invest that, and generate a return greater than the interest rate on the mortgage and end up ahead. A lot of the mortgage calculators have a 3-5yr inflection point where renting, traditionally, was always cheaper if you planned on staying somewhere for 3-5yrs and moving.

The problem is, the equation has flipped. Mortgage payments are now, in many cases, cheaper than rent and there's such a high demand for rental units in some metro areas that landlords have no problems keeping tenants increasing rent 3-10% year over year. Ideally, you could do the same arbitrage buying a house (ideally an asset that nets 0 when you sell it worst case and you get your money back) and invest the rent-mortgage delta into other assets. The problem is "unlocking" the house option. If you don't have exemplary credit, and a certain pile of cash available, banks are leery to touch you and make financing available. Ergo, you get forced into the rental market and there's a huge incentive to turn properties into rentals.

Tack on the millennial generation's hesitancy to settle down in one location and you get a set of economic conditions that encourage renting and regular rent increases.

2 comments

>Tack on the millennial generation's hesitancy to settle down in one location and you get a set of economic conditions that encourage renting and regular rent increases.

Are we hesitant to "settle down" or are we trapped in a death spiral of student debt, rising rents and underemployment?

As always, it depends. Speaking anecdotally, most of the millennials I know speak rather forcefully about their desire to not settle down, marry, or begin a family prior to 30. I can count the number (amongst my friends) on one hand who discuss factors like underemployment and debt as being significant in their decision to delay settling down. Most seem to enjoy the party/city lifestyle and spend their time focusing on their career/traveling instead.

Yes, it's possible all of those things are factors but I'm going to argue for most it's subconscious rather than explicit factors in a settle/not settle equation. I think a lot of millennials are buying into the "extended adolescence"/party phase/single life/no responsibility/free spirit/high mobility (pick your moniker) lifestyle choices and acting accordingly - based on my anecdotal experience.

> landlords have no problems keeping tenants increasing rent 3-10% year over year.

Where are the accompanying income increases coming from? Clearly not W-2 income. What can't continue forever does tend to stop. Or at least what happens on an extremely small scale can't be the case over an extremely large scale. Can't squeeze blood from a stone...

Also never forget the cost of home ownership isn't the mortgage, at least when compared to renting. That's only about half, once the numerous additional expenses are considered. My bachelor pad rent included everything but the electrical bill. Mortgages do not pay the gas bill or for a roof or a new HVAC system or water bill or (generally) property taxes or ...

They're growing rent until they hit the breaking point that no one will pay. Many of the families in my metro area are 2-parent working families and many of the big corp positions here tend towards mid to senior level or executive positions with the requisite salary and landlords keep pushing the rent up so long as people are willing to continue paying it. For single people, it's common to be cramming 4+ into a single family home (which pushes rent down to <$1k/person depending, not including utilities). For married folks, I hope you're both working and bringing in bank. Apartments tend to be more reasonable than single family homes, depending on location, but they're still quite high (1br apartments are between 1.6k-3k+/mo depending on the building. Closer you are to a metro or major roadway, substantially higher price).

In essence, we're a victim of our own success. Back in the day, life revolved around the city center and much of what is the 'burbs now was farm land. Overtime, as more people moved to the area, the cheap real estate was always al little bit further out from the city so people would saddle up and buy a house (with a 20-30 commute as the penalty) for a reasonable price. Over time, companies started building offices in the 'burbs, more people kept moving to the area, and the creep has pushed "affordable" out almost 20-30miles from the city center (commute time >1hr). Factor in the road networks are terrible, and mass transit stations are rare enough that real estate near them commands a premium and you find people willing to fork over a chunk of change in rent to not have a terrible commute either to city center or their 'burb job. Houses for sale, in the neighborhoods closer to the city, with good schools, not terrible commute etc, are generally priced for 2-income families. (>$500k).

Yes, the tradeoff between renting and buying is you assume the risk and costs of maintenance in buying. Most of the rentals i know of (single family homes or townhouse) push the cost of utilities onto the renter so really, all we aren't paying for is standard house maintenance and taxes. I'd rather assume the costs and risks of maintenance and taxes (and budget for them accordingly) and live with a fixed housing cost rather than continue fighting variable costs and potentially cranky landlords. Nothing makes a good housing situation sour faster than a bad land lord.