[newsoul2019]

Am I the only one who has always seen renting as a temporary arrangement only? If you don't own something, somewhere, doesn't that mean the same as being homeless? Not trying to offend anyone. Genuinely wondering, are there people who really don't want to own real estate ever in their lives?

[nostrademons]

It's the same bargain as being dependent on anyone else for anything else. Whether it's a problem depends on how abundant that "something else" is, which depends on the larger societal context.

I'll give an analogy: my dad used to hoard toilet paper, preferring to "own" large stockpiles of it rather than just get it as necessary from the store. Why? Because he grew up in WW2, in an occupied country, and had to shit in the river and wipe his butt with stones. This doesn't even compute for my American-born generation: to us, the supermarket is always there, and if you need toilet paper you go buy it.

Similarly, if you can assume that another rental will always be there when you need it, there's no need to own. And in dense urban areas with lots of landlords, that's a pretty valid assumption. Somebody refuses to rent to you (which has happened), just rent from somebody else. I'd rather own financial assets like stock - which I can take with me anywhere, and which usually have a much greater monopoly position than the landlord - and then use the income thrown off by them to rent accommodation.

Would I be fucked if there were a financial crisis or breakdown in social order? Yes. But if I were to own a typical 1/4 acre suburban detached home, I'd still be fucked - because you're still renting water & sewer access from the city, electricity from the utility, Internet from Comcast, food from the grocery store, etc, not to mention that your ownership only extends to your ability to pay the bank monthly. If you want to actually be secure & independent, you not only need your own land with a sturdily-built home, you also need solar panels, well water, a septic system, and obscurity. And you need to own it free & clear with no debts.

A similar logic applies to people who take Uber instead of owning a car, or who pay monthly for a SaaS instead of buying software outright, or who get food delivered rather than owning cookware and cooking themselves. As long as they can count on the service always being available, it works.

[mulmen]

I've been renting for a long time and I have never considered myself to be homeless. When it rains I generally stay dry. I'm not sure how renting implies or is in any way similar to homelessness. I still have the means to provide shelter for myself. I could even rent a hotel room for quite a while, long enough to find a new place for sure.

I don't see how the risk of being evicted (is this something people worry about?) is any greater than the numerous possible disasters that could strike a place you own in ways renters don't have to worry about.

[pnutjam]

How many kids do you have? I have 6 and moving in the elementary school district is a huge pain. There aren't alot of rentals and big surprise, nobody wants to rent to someone with 6 kids. Not only is 60 days notice not enough time. The landlords require 60 to 90 days notice and of course every rental wants you to move in immediately. In my experience, it's rare to find someone advertising a rental more then 30 days out from availability.

[zaccus]

No. People who rent are not homeless. That's ridiculous.

This kind of semantic babble only serves to cloud people's judgment. For some people, owning makes more sense. For others, renting makes more sense. Not sure what is hard to understand about that.

[sfkdjf9j3j]

Renting an apartment is actually the opposite of being homeless. Homeless people have no secure housing and need to sleep on the streets, in cars, or in shelters. If you are renting a place, you have 24/7 access to it and can stay there for shelter.

[rifung]

I do see renting as a temporary arrangement only in the sense that at any point it's possible I will be forced to move out.

However, after doing the math I think I will rent for my entire life since it makes much more sense financially (much to my surprise)

[stale2002]

No? It give me freedom to rent.

At any point that I feel like it, I can pick up and move. Whether it is to a place across the street or on the other side of the country.

I wouldn't have nearly that much freedom if I had the misfortune of owning my own place.

[mamon]

As someone put it: freedom is just another word for "having nothing left to lose". Homeless people are generaly most free of all, they do not have any obligations, bills to pay, work to show up, but I wouldn't consider that something we should aspire to.

[newsoul2019]

Do you see this as a temporary or permanent situation in your life? What is your "end game" so to speak?

[tathougies]

> What is your "end game" so to speak?

One very reasonable 'end game' for those who do not want to own is to invest enough cash in the stock market so that your rate of return supersedes your rent, thus guaranteeing that, if rent increases are within reason, you are able to finance renting interminably. Stock markets typically have a higher rate of return than real estate, so...

[zaccus]

Nothing is permanent. The end game is death.

[stale2002]

Permanent.

Buying a home is a bad investment, because I could have all that money getting 7% returns in the stock market.

[maxerickson]

There's lots of places (entire countries) where people of ordinary means have little chance of owning real estate.

[almost_usual]

In SF you probably have more freedom as a renter than property owner.