[deanmoriarty]

I am a renter so I don't have a horse in this race, but renting is many times the financially worse choice even in HCOL.

Why? Because rent inflates like crazy over here! In the Bay Area 7%+ a year is completely expected, and 10% is not unusual. I have been all over the Bay Area for more than a decade (San Francisco proper, East Bay, South Bay) and know this well. It's been nuts.

Random example: the 1 bedroom apartment that I lived in 2012 and was then going for $1,500 a month, is now going for $3,800 in the exact same building (with no/minimal renovations it seems, I just looked it up). An ~8% YoY increase. That will do it to any buy vs rent calculator, very easy to break even in under 5 years, and that's excluding the speculative ability to refinance if interest rates go down from the current 7%, in which case it becomes a huge boost.

Renting as a long term choice just works in European countries where normal people can lock in 5+ year leases with no or minimal rent increases. America is too profit-seeking and greedy for that.

I still rent for flexibility reasons, but I definitely see it as a luxury lifestyle choice, the most financially responsible thing would be to buy, even in HCOL.

All this in my opinion and personal experience, totally fine if people see it differently.

[hintklb]

SF is the poster child of a HCOL where buying makes absolutely no sense.

Even if rent increases a lot, the buy to rent ratio is so horrible that it could continue to increase for MANY more years before buying could make sense.

I invite you to use the NYT Rent or buy calculator, It is clear as day: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html

[deanmoriarty]

I just did, picturing exactly the situation I'm in right now:

- Rent: $3,500

- Home price: $700,000 (a similar unit just sold for this price a few months ago in my building)

- Rent increase: 8%

- All other parameters left as default, which seem reasonable (and as I said, there might be chances of refinancing over the next 10 years, which would drastically skew the picture, but I'm leaving that assumption out)

The ratio of 0.5% monthly rent/price is common for non-luxury "dated" condos all over the city, so I think my situation reflects well the typical renter.

Once again, in my personal experience, guided by a decade+ of living here, what people miss is the crazy rate of rent inflation. There is always a massive rent increase right around the corner, and God forbid if you are forced to move (because the landlord wants you to, it happened a couple times), then you take a gigantic hit at market rate. Once you factor in these occasional resets and the standard yearly increase, you get very close to 10% rent increase.

[hintklb]

Is this a condo with an outrageous HOA that you are not including? Many such cases that explain why condos are valued so much lower.

In SF I have been renting a 1.6M$ townhouse for 4k$/month, and that is very typical of what you can find in SF and in SV.

That has been my experience. Rent increase have been outrageous, but not as bad as the ratio between renting and buying. I would still rent even if my rent went up 50%...

[socalgal2]

I think you're leaving out other expenses. You'll be paying HOA fees (one friend in SF pays ~$1000 a month and I've heard of worse). You'll also be paying property tax at around $650 a month. You'll probably be paying some maintenance that your landlord would have had to cover (though maybe HOA fees cover some of that?)

[exodust]

On a related note, how do routine inspections work in the US? Does someone walk through the house taking photos every 6 or 12 months, making sure you're keeping the place clean and no damage etc? That's how it is here in Australia, and is absolutely the worst aspect of renting IMHO.

[ameliaquining]

Nowhere I've lived has ever done that and I don't even think there was provision for it in any lease I've signed.

[exodust]

I ended up asking Grok, which said:

"Routine inspections are common in many states but not universal. Some states, like California and Texas, explicitly allow periodic inspections with proper notice, while others may have stricter regulations limiting landlord access unless there's a specific reason (e.g., repairs or suspected lease violations)."

[gaws]

> Why? Because rent inflates like crazy over here! In the Bay Area 7%+ a year is completely expected, and 10% is not unusual. I have been all over the Bay Area for more than a decade (San Francisco proper, East Bay, South Bay) and know this well. It's been nuts.

The great thing about renting? You can move.

[archagon]

If you live in rent controlled housing in SF, your rent increases are gonna be a lot less than 10% a year. And you're unlikely to ever be evicted due to a house sale.

During our last apartment search, it was not particularly difficult to find a rent controlled apartment.

I wish other cities would do the same thing.

[gaws]

> During our last apartment search, it was not particularly difficult to find a rent controlled apartment.

They're not hard to find, but the competition is cutthroat, sometimes worse than among potential buyers bidding on a house.

[bombcar]

Rent controlled housing (depending on how implemented) can effectively create “land gentry” who have access to a valuable asset at below market prices that they can’t sell.

[archagon]

Nevertheless, I think it's unconscionable to let landlords arbitrarily increase rent and evict people at will. Rent control and increasing the housing supply should be orthogonal issues, more or less.