|
|
|
|
|
|
by burnt-resistor
361 days ago
|
|
|
I played that game in my 20's spending $8k/month on rent, but only for a short time. That's crazy rent. There are probably much cheaper areas nearby. There are plenty of areas where very nice homes are $200-400k. Except you're paying a landlord money that could be going towards property that you own, and that equity is portable. You won't have any wealth when you become very old and cannot work. You and your family will end up with nothing. Borrowing has to be sensible for income ratio. YMMV, but middle-/lower-income people spending an unreasonable % on rent to live in Manhattan or SF are fighting a losing battle they cannot afford to play. |
|
|
What do you propose? Borrow money and buy a house for millions that I can't afford? Sounds like a faster way to go broke.
Also, we all saw how the LA fires went. You'd better have $6 million in cash if you want a $3 million house. $3 million for the house, $3 million for a backup house when the first one burns down and insurance decides not to pay for it. You do not have "equity" in anything that is flammable. Flammable == disposable. Try gold bars instead.
If I could buy a house for $300K that was livable, not moldy, and not look like it was going to come crashing down during the next big earthquake, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
> There are plenty of areas where very nice homes are $200-400k
Yeah, I know there are houses for $300K in the middle of Arkansas. But there are no jobs there, I'm not going to live on burgers and fries, and all the goddamn tech bro CEOs in the valley have decided on RTO. At least there is real food here.
My real plan though: Work and save up enough money that I can live the rest of my life in Asia on my savings.
> unreasonable % on rent
I don't spend a big % of my income on rent.
I DO spend a big % of my income on taxes. That's the real problem.