[mdnahas]

No. When you rent, you usually are paying (1) the owner's mortgage, (2) taxes, (3) maintenance and (4) profit. So renting the same place is almost always much more expensive than the mortgage payment.

Rents do not have to rise. They have been rising in most cities because people are moving to cities. Rents dropped in Detroit when a lot of people left. (Rents also rise with inflation.)

I do wonder about the data. It compares the median rental to the median house purchase. And people usually rent smaller places. So, renting is usually cheaper because of that. I don't know that it is an apples-to-apples comparison.

[sparrc]

That's not necessarily the case. When you buy a house you can't suddenly just have a mortgage payment equivalent to someone who bought 10-20 years ago. And someone who just recently bought a house cannot charge higher rent than someone who bought 10-20 years ago.

In other words, rent is dictated by the market, not some "cost plus profit" calculation on a per-landlord basis as you're describing.

If you're renting from someone who just recently bought the house, they are very likely taking a short-term loss for long-term gain.

[bluefirebrand]

> No. When you rent, you usually are paying (1) the owner's mortgage, (2) taxes, (3) maintenance and (4) profit

In what world is this usual? Most of the time when renting you're paying for a single floor of a house or a single condo unit. It would be insane to expect people who are renting a portion of a building to pay for the whole damn thing.