[hintklb]

The best way to calculate those intangible is to associate a value to them, Most people love to say that owning is so good because they can decide on their own house improvement.

Ok, but how much do you really value this over? Is it worth 2M$ over 30 years? Because in a lot of cases this is what you leave on the table by deciding to own.

[silisili]

How much is your kid's smile worth because they are able to build a treehouse, or ride a go kart around the yard?

Breaking everything into some numerical value misses the whole point of life. But hey, who cares if you're rich when you're old?

[socalgal2]

I agree there are pluses to living in a house. One, you can rent a house. But also, there are benefits for kids living in apartments, condos as well. If we're just talking about money, maybe the things you can afford (more travel with your kids, more activities for your kids, more money for kids hobbies, etc...). More time (instead of spending time maintaining your house, gardening, mowing the lawn, etc... you can spend that time with your kids).

I'm not saying an apartment is better than a house. I'm only saying it's not about "rich when your old" vs "kids treehouse and go kart".

Thinking about all the things I loved about my house. Had a pool (but so do many apartment complexes). Could be much noisier than I can in an apartment. Had a garage for tools. I thinking most of the other things I liked have analogs in apartments/condos. But again, you can rent a house.

[ameliaquining]

In the U.S., renting a single-family home is not usually a particularly good idea. Because of the tax disadvantages that I mentioned upthread, but also because the market's relatively thin (in part because of said tax disadvantages) and this makes it harder to find a house you like as much.

(You can pay people to do maintenance tasks on your house, and if you rent then you're already indirectly paying for that. Professional landlords benefit a bit from economies of scale and such, but it's a minor difference.)

[hintklb]

>> if you rent then you're already indirectly paying for that.

Quick note: People repeat this non stop ("The cost is passed down to the renter"). This has been proven false many times. The cost to the landlord is mostly irrelevant to the renter. Rent is set by offer and demand in a particular market. Just try to increase your place 1000$ above market rates because "Maintenance and taxes", your renters will move. So it obviously doesn't work like this.

[ameliaquining]

Increased costs that affect all landlords equally are reflected in market prices, though not necessarily in a linear fashion.

[hintklb]

I think you are missing the point entirely and have an "holier than you attitude"

The whole point of optimizing for some things is exactly so that I can spend more time with my kids and wife. I will be retired in the next year (in my 40s) and spend time with them while most people will continue to work in their 70s to pay their mortgage.

I am regularly traveling the world with my son and loved ones while most people use their weekend to "repair their homes".

The exact reason I do all of this is to spend way more time with my loved ones. Most people that act in autopilot mode never think about this and therefore end up not spending time with their kids (But Go Kart around the yard!)

You seem to think the only way forward is to provide a house to your family. I think retiring early, spending more time with them and experiencing the world is a good trade off for renting. I would invite you to consider different point of views