[angra_mainyu]

What's wrong with renting? I refuse to buy until I hit at least my 40s and/or start a family and decide I will stay put in a place.

I've seen people go through the incredible pain of having to either turn down job offers because they can't sell in a month's time and relocate or be drowned in the myriad issues involved in selling/renting out.

Personally I can't justify buying a house to myself until I either hit my 40s or have picked a corner of the world I want to settle down with a family and probably die and get buried there.

EDIT: why downvote? I'm not opposing people buying houses, I'm opposing demonizing renting out when for lots of people it's the preferred option.

[petepete]

If you're able to save while renting, fair.

Lots of people can't and get stuck in the cycle. In the UK at least, they're often just paying other peoples' mortgages.

[chgs]

U.K. has a viscous cycle where if your parents are in commuting distance of London you can live with them for a few years and the money you save from not renting will fund a deposit. By the time you’re 30 you can then by and your career will have progressed

If you can’t benefit from that then you spend that deposit on renting, which means you can’t buy in your 30s and are trapped in the rent cycle.

[angra_mainyu]

> If you can’t benefit from that then you spend that deposit on renting, which means you can’t buy in your 30s and are trapped in the rent cycle.

I disagree with this - assuming the average white collar job (given HN), you _will_ progress salarywise from your early 20s to your early 30s.

When I was a Jr. Software Dev at 23, I both didn't have the money to afford a house where I got all the job offers (which wouldn't make sense), nor would it have been a good idea given I would've wanted to stay open to chasing higher salaries after 1-3 years elsewhere (which I did).

Maybe some decades ago it was common to spend your whole professional career in the same city, but as a dev I've had jobs pop up in different cities, heck even different countries!

[chgs]

Jobs in different cities in the U.K.? Jobs in London pay far more than ones in Manchester or Birmingham, let alone the majority of the country.

That’s the point - the junior jobs tend to be in the major cities especially London. If you are from say the kings lynn suburbs, or barnstaple, or thirsk, it’s unlikely you’ll get a job with high career growth without spending a decade with all you income in rent and commute as you won’t be living with parents and saving £1200 a month (in the London case)

Most people are looking to settle down in one place by their 30s when they have kids. Of course that doesn’t happen as much now in the western world, mainly due to housing costs rather than active choice, and sure some are happy to be global nomads, never put down roots, never have a family. Renting can make sense for them.

Doesn’t change the fact that most people have at least one child, and benefit from having a steady home they own near their parents. This skews massively in favour of those in London and commuting distance as that’s where the highest paid jobs are.

[walthamstow]

It's a great advantage of people from the London area, especially inside zone 6 where travel is much cheaper than outside the TFL area.

However, it is also likewise a trap. Prices have moved quicker than people can save, unless they have a lucrative career or live like a monk

I know one person trapped like this, he's 30 this year. He has good savings but can't afford to buy on his own, bank won't lend enough on his salary, he needs a partner, but it's harder to find one when you live at home.

[Tade0]

I think it's a broader phenomenon. I was raised in the capital city of my country, but moved to a smaller city because I can work remotely and was largely priced out of the real estate market at home anyway.

This allowed me to afford an apartment while my siblings who stayed are basically stuck renting.

[angra_mainyu]

Odd, renting while I lived in the UK was the only way I was able to save.

If I had attempted to buy, I would literally have financially died (not to mention wouldn't have been able to pursue better jobs elsewhere at the drop of a hat - month's notice).

[proneb1rd]

Not only UK, Europe in general is stuck in this nonsense. People buy properties, tenants pay their mortgage. In 15 years the property is yours mostly at the expense of someone else plus it gained in value. After owning it for so long and selling the property you probably pay lower capital gains from that too. Unless you put all that money in the right stocks in 2010, renting just doesn’t make all that much sense in this economy.

[angra_mainyu]

> renting just doesn’t make all that much sense in this economy

I disagree.

Example scenario of many young Europeans in their 20s:

- living in small or mid-sized city

- job offer pops up paying significantly more across the country, either capital or one of the top cities

- move and earn significantly more (even when adjusted for CoL)

- continue progressing careerwise

- job offer pops up elsewhere, possibly in other EU countries, pays significantly more

A reasonable person in their 20s would allow themselves the chance to focus on professional career growth/salary growth up until they hit their mid-30s in which they can start considering settling in a given place and purchasing. Before that it's nonsensical.

To give my own example, I went through various cities across several countries, starting at 12k, then a few years later job offer in another country for 33k, then a few years later at 54k, then at 115k, all before 30 years old (because I allowed myself to be anchor-free).

The rest who stayed put in the same city? 12k to 30k in the same span of time.

Anyone telling a person in their 20s: "buy a house and stay put" is giving terrible advice. The advice should be something along the lines of: "what you do in your 20s will bear fruits in your 30s, stay open-minded, adventurous, don't be afraid to burn out and discover your limits, see the world before your parents get old, and try your hardest".

[akudha]

This is the thing that is so depressing. I know someone who owns 6 apartments, 5 of which he has rented out and his family is living in the 6th. Every couple of years, he will save enough money for the down payment, buy an apartment and his tenants end up paying the mortgage.

His tenants will never be able to save enough money for a down payment, so they are stuck in a endless cycle of paying someone else's mortgage, just for the privilege of having a roof over their heads. If wages were fair, if mega corps like Blackrock weren't allowed to buy entire neighborhoods, maybe his tenants will have a fighting chance of owning a place for themselves, even if it is just a small two bedroom apartment.

A dude I used to work with - he used to buy a couple of apartments in buildings right when they get started (he has contacts all over a major city). By the time the buildings are finished 3 years later, the "value" of those apartments have already gone up anywhere from 10 to 20 percent or more, depending on the area. He'd sell for a profit, rinse and repeat. His only goal is to flip - sometimes he buys apartments without even looking at them. Of course it is legal, but is it ethical?

This whole thing is just depressing.

[rufus_foreman]

>> What's wrong with renting?

The problem with renting, in areas like the parent poster is talking about, is that in those areas almost anyone who can hold down a full time job, even a low wage job, can afford to buy a house. When you rent an apartment, you end up living around the people who can't hold down a full time job. Which is not always ideal.

[spicyusername]

    why downvote

    for lots of people it's the preferred option.

I am going to guess the down votes represent dissent from the idea that renting is generally the preferred option.

Renting is definitely more flexible, but it is also basically just a regressive tax that transfers wealth from those at the lower end of the income distribution to those closer to the top.

If housing was affordable, I think you'd find that most would opt to own and there would be less ability for those with means to prey on those without.

[tzs]

By that kind of reasoning what purchased goods or services I get from any entity wealthier than me aren't a regressive tax? For instance I bought a sandwich from Subway yesterday rather than making one at home, because it was more convenient. Was that a regressive tax on my food?

[spicyusername]

Imagine there is a drought and the price of food rises, because food is scarce. A few people can no longer afford the whole sandwich.

To pander to those who can no longer buy the whole sandwich, and take advantage of the drought, those well off start buying even more food, more than they need, and reselling the sandwich, per-bite, with huge markup. This also drives the price even higher, due both to the markup and to the increased demand from the resellers. Now even less people can afford the full sandwich.

The resellers parasitic per-bite markup is the regressive tax, not the sale of the sandwich. The markup transfers wealth from those without the ability to buy the whole sandwich to those who can resell, when reselling is providing no value. Everyone was able to buy sandwiches just fine, before the drought. Those buying per-bite are also now going hungry, most meals, because they can only afford a few bites.

The solution is either to find ways to end the drought, ration the available full sandwiches, or sell smaller sandwiches, not to allow drought-profiteering that exacerbates the sandwich scarcity and makes more people go hungry.