Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The real cost of owning a home

ericturner.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 901 posts

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#891

Post by Panzer04 »

csomar wrote: post #845
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> electrical issue, window/door breaking, a paint job, a clogged pipe, mold growing somewhere, a tree that needed handling, etc I did forget about two of those. I did need to get some trees handled a few years ago. Was about $3,000 to get like 5 trees (A couple over 150 feet) removed. And we did get the house repainted, but that wasn't completely necessary, but was a nice to have. Wasn't that expensive, surprisingly.…

Rent is determined by supply/demand. In the USA, rents are higher (than buy) because rental businesses are dominated by companies who can do the math. In many parts of the world, rental businesses are small/micro by someone/family who want to own property. See this: https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/gmaps.jsp?indexTo... So for many people around the world, it's more economical to rent. You are basically bein…

Yep, this.

A unit (multi-dwelling property, not necessarily an apartment) might cost 650k here, but only rent for 500$/w. 25kpa is a 4% return on that principle, before expenses (property management, maintenance, rates/taxes etc).

The only context in which it makes sense is if capital gains/land value goes up, which it has historically but that's no guarantee.

Houses make all these numbers even worse - higher upfront expense (land value) and lower rental yield (they rent for more, but tenants prefer a better house/dwelling more than they care about a back yard, so cost goes up more than rent does)

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#892

Post by ragall »

duskdozer wrote: post #881
ragall wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never ceases to surprise me how North American homes are just a source of time wasting for the owners. I grew up in Italy and we never had to do any of that (except repainting the rooms once every 20 years with my father).

How you you occupy yourself without spending four hours every other day mowing the lawn (gas, ride-on) and then blowing the clippings and dust back and forth with your leafblower (gas, backpack) and then spreading fertilizer and chemicals to make sure you can continue mowing the lawn so frequently? My neighbor would lose his mind!

The main source of the need of maintenance in NA is the choice of construction materials and house design.

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#893

Post by laughing_man »

skew-aberration wrote: post #670
laughing_man wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absent government interference, rent is based on supply and demand. Why would you spend extra on a place even if you had the money?

While this is true, you're not actually contradicting what I'm saying. In economics, supply/demand is a curve (not a scalar quantity). If everybody's wage increases, then the demand does go up (the tail of the curve goes up). But this is pointless abstraction really. If a magic fairy started putting 100 USD in the pocket of every renter each week, what do you think would happen to rent? Would the landowners be oblige…

I don't think that fairy's $100 would have any effect on rents. People would save it or use it to buy consumer junk.

Landlords don't set the market price for rents. They can refuse all they want but if nobody will rent the place for what they're asking, they'll have to lower the price. If the supply hasn't changed, and the demand hasn't change, the price won't change.

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#894

Post by skew-aberration »

laughing_man wrote: post #893
skew-aberration wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is true, you're not actually contradicting what I'm saying. In economics, supply/demand is a curve (not a scalar quantity). If everybody's wage increases, then the demand does go up (the tail of the curve goes up). But this is pointless abstraction really. If a magic fairy started putting 100 USD in the pocket of every renter each week, what do you think would happen to rent? Would the landowners be oblige…

I don't think that fairy's $100 would have any effect on rents. People would save it or use it to buy consumer junk. Landlords don't set the market price for rents. They can refuse all they want but if nobody will rent the place for what they're asking, they'll have to lower the price. If the supply hasn't changed, and the demand hasn't change, the price won't change.

In both of my examples, demand has increased, per the definition used in economics. Demand is not 'the number of people who want to live in this area', it is more like 'the number of people who will rent a house in this area at a given price', it is a function/curve and not a single number - the demand at a price of last week's rent + $100 has just skyrocketed.

Let's assume all 100M renters in the US put their fairy money in the S&P 500, and then one landlord raises the rent. The family moves down the street. Now other local landlords follow - some people leave town, move in with family, etc, but others now agree to pay up. Next every single landlord asks for $100/week more - after all, their tenants can afford to pay. What happens? What is stopping them?

Why are rents high in Silicon Valley? Because you can earn a lot there. If you could earn $100/week more without working, why wouldn't rents go up? What about $10000/week? The market rates are not set by landlords but they are set by the earning capacity of the tenants.

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#895

Post by laughing_man »

obloid wrote: post #713
laughing_man wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plumbing isn't all that complicated, really. There are things you have to understand, but a little research will take you a long way. I only call the plumber when I don't have the equipment I'd need, like cameras and snakes.

If you're comfortable doing DIY a lot of equipment can be rented at your local Home Depot or similar store. I had a clogged sewer line and rented a drain snake for the afternoon. Much cheaper than calling the plumber. The thing I won't do is roof work. Too scary.

I stay off the roof too. That's for younger and more nimble guys.

I had a boss who was up on his roof installing an antenna when he slipped and fell off. It was a scene from a 1920s comedy -- his wife was looking out the window and saw her husband's falling body flash by.

Only it's not funny IRL. His liver was punctured, he lost his spleen, and his back was never right again.

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#896

Post by Suppafly »

asdff wrote: post #858
Suppafly wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, I live in the midwest, even people that have lawn services have them come weekly or even every 10 days.

That would be fine in late summer but in growing season chances are you aren't noticing the increased mowing frequency. Most of it happens when you are probably working 9-5 after all.

I work from home, I'm well aware of when my neighbors get their lawns mowed, and mine perpetually looks unmowed since I mow on the weekends and they have lawn services that come on weekdays.

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#897

Post by SirMaster »

skeptic_ai wrote: post #727
SirMaster wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay only 650/mo for rent though. My friends with homes around me pay about what I pay in rent in their home property taxes alone... Or especially once you add in some utilities, like my heat is included in my rent and I can have my place at like 75F all winter if I want. Also yes they replaced the dish washer and refrigerator with new ones before they broke or died while I've been there.

But you rent a studio and they have a 4 bed house. You compare apples and oranges

So what's the house comparison for me then? If people are going to say owning is always better, then what should I be owning instead of renting my studio?

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#898

Post by dividefuel »

darknavi wrote: post #330
dividefuel wrote: post #315

Beyond financial costs, I was caught off guard at how much time home ownership took up. House maintenance and projects have taken up most of every single weekend of mine for the past few years. Part of it is simply that I bought a house with more space than the places I usually rented. More to clean, more to maintain, more things that can go wrong, etc. But the biggest thing is that I'm the only one in charge of main…

> House maintenance and projects have taken up most of every single weekend of mine for the past few years. Mine come and go but it's no where near every weekend since I've purchased in 2019. What sort of things occupy this much time?

Coming back a few days later, but here's my current todo list:

- Lawn care

- Pool care

- Trim back trumpet vine in side yard

- Fix a leaking drip irrigation adapter

- Prune dead branches in liquid amber tree

- Repair / replace squeaky dryer parts

- Replace washing machine seal

- Trim back ivy near maple tree

- Cover sprinkler valves that are in the sun

- Replace dining room light bulb

- Trim trees off the fence

- Pull privet stalks

- Paint bare spots on front patio

Most of these are probably 30-120 minutes of work.

Re: The real cost of owning a home

#900

Post by laughing_man »

skew-aberration wrote: post #894
laughing_man wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that fairy's $100 would have any effect on rents. People would save it or use it to buy consumer junk. Landlords don't set the market price for rents. They can refuse all they want but if nobody will rent the place for what they're asking, they'll have to lower the price. If the supply hasn't changed, and the demand hasn't change, the price won't change.

In both of my examples, demand has increased, per the definition used in economics. Demand is not 'the number of people who want to live in this area', it is more like 'the number of people who will rent a house in this area at a given price', it is a function/curve and not a single number - the demand at a price of last week's rent + $100 has just skyrocketed. Let's assume all 100M renters in the US put their fairy…

Just because there's more money available doesn't mean people are willing to spend more on a particular item. There are always substitute goods -- in the SF Bay area you can commute from the East Bay, for example.

Beyond that, rents can reach a point were people are not willing to take jobs in a given area, which will relieve the pressure. I just don't think your contention giving everyone more money necessarily means they'll spend it all on rent. Why do you assume people don't already have money they could spend on rent if the wanted to?

Post reply on HN