I sure as FUCK would not recommend buying a house for "a couple" of years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767948)

It's all local.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767981)

It's like saying a good rule of thumb is that lawyers can afford nice houses.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768347)

Use that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767974)

(guy who lives and dies by boomer flame)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768300)

1) condo that is cheap enough that it won't force you to alter your lifestyle and that you can hold onto and rent out after you eventually move out

and

2) stand alone home that you are comfortable living in for at least 15 years and is within your price range.

Anything else seems to be short sighted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767908)

For my area, something like 3yrs becomes the break even point. Fuck yeah Texas. FWIW we got lucky and actually found a really desperate buyer (moving across the country in like a week, no one had made an offer because owner had SICK upgrades, and apparently people are dumb as fuck and want boring conventional sinks, fans, toilets, etc.).

So we bought like 10% under appraised value, adn appraised value is always less than what you'll sell it for absent some really weird scenario like utter desperation to sell.

So we've already made back our transaction costs, and that's after only a year of owning, and not even counting tax benefits and that our house is 50% bigger than our previous apt not counting the land and garage and also $150 cheaper per month for mortgage, insurance, taxes than rent alone was.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767954)

How much were closing costs as a percentage of mortgaged amount?

How much did you spend? Even with low rates, taxes in Texas are pretty substantial and mortgage + taxes + PMI + insurance is usually more than rent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23770705)

What?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23771362)

The other obnoxious shit is that you're limited on what renovations you can do. Have a place with only window a/c and want ductless? I ton of places ban that. Want to convert carpet to hardwood? A bunch have 80%+ carpet rules because of noise issues to downstairs neighbors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23771133)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767942)

Don't forget, there is value in the optionality inherent in renting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767955)

1. until you have money for deposit+$10,000.

2. until you find the right house for you now+15 yrs down the road.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768020)

only upside is if the market gets hot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767939)

of course you could be OK w/losing some $ on home purchase

my wife and I were

we aren't looking to make money on a house, and we bought the cheapest house we were happy with, so even if we lose like 20% when we sell it's honestly not really that big of a deal to us in the grand scheme of things

the psychic benefits of owning a house are that valuable to us (but obv not that valuable to everyone on xo)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23767971)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768016)

i have a friend who just bought a place in kiev for 260k. the market is dead there, and will surely spike a lot in 5-10 years. in addition, he will be able to rent it out for about 2400-2500 per month. so, not only does he own an appreciating asset, but he gets a dividend of 11% per year (assuming 2400)

tell me how this is a bad investment?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768047)

in general, buying a home you are going to live in is a stupid business plan

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768088)

for example, i bought a starter condo for $335k. my monthly payment is around $1800/mo v. about $1400/mo renting. ~$700 of the ~$1800 is HOA plus taxes, so that's already money you throw away. in the first few years of a ~$1100/mo mortgage payment, the bulk of your payment is all toward interest so you're building very little equity. so in the end, after about 2 years of ownership, every month i'm throwing about ~$1500/mo on interest, hoa, and taxes, which exceeds the cost of renting. for buying to make economic sense, you need the market to appreciate enough to offset all your transaction costs, all your interest payments, taxes, and maintenance costs, which is extremely hard to do in a short amount of time.

for me, buying a condo made sense b/c it's not something i need to dump in 2-3 years when i want a single family home. i can easily keep it and rent it out for $2k/mo, which would cover all the costs and i can wait to sell it in 10 years. but theoretically, if i were to sell this now, i would, at best, break even on the transaction despite the fact that the market has appreciated quite a bit in the last 6 months. you certainly would get a better return in the stock market than in RE.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768010)

*assumes literal worst case scenario*

my HOA fee is like $200/yr

gated community | upper middle class | no one wants a community pool

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768107)

i mean, if you buy a condo you're basically living in an apt anyway, shared walls, no fences b/w you and neighbor, no yard, etc., wtf's the point?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23771146)

My bad. I assumed you paid ~$2400 a year in taxes. A quick check puts that number more like ~$4000.

Explain spending $400 a month on HOA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768333)

(uses profit to finances 2.25 years of private school tuition for one of planned future generation of gunners)

(lives the dream!)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768328)

"i can easily keep it and rent it out for $2k/mo, which would cover all the costs and i can wait to sell it in 10 years."

Do you see the flaw here?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769081)

$1400/mo is what I was paying for a 1BR apt in LA. I bought a 2BR which I can easily rent out for $2k.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769100)

you're basically saying you're so lazy you were willingly and knowingly letting yourself get gouged, and therefore you will have no problem finding someone else to do the same thing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769999)

i'm just not going to overinflate how much i'm gaining from buying a 2BR when i know that i wouldn't have moved into a 2BR for at least 2 years of ownership. after my bf moved in with me, i would now compare renting of comparable properties since we would've gotten a 2BR together.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23770252)

"Instead I buy nicer 2br (worth $2,000/mo) that costs $1,500 in non-equity payments)."

Not even factoring in appreciation, the "utility" of a $600 better apartment is less than $100? Don't be fucktarded.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769538)

If most of that $2000 goes into the extra bedroom and bathroom which you have to clean, but dont live in, is that really any more utility than a perhaps nicer 1 bedroom?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769545)

"Renting is smarter because I'm a fucking financially retarded shrew."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769726)

in my case (and in the case of my friends who own more house than they currently need), it doesn't make sense compare the same property for rent v. buy purposes at the point where you're getting no utility out of having a few extra bedrooms and, in fact, it increases your expenses by paying more in utilities, cleaning, furnishing it, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769834)

I bought my condo for $340k last March. I bought a condo that was about 1,200 sq feet because....wait for it...that's all I needed. Four units in my building with similar floorplans, view, and features have sold for between $525k and $610k in the last 5 months. Zillow values my unit at $455k with a high range of $580k.

And I could rent it for $3,000 within a day or two.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769895)

but unlike you, i'm not going to assume the best case scenario where i can sell my home at the top of the market and compare it to renting the exact same place when i know i would've stayed in a 1BR otherwise. i'm also realistic and not going to say that buying v. renting makes sense for everyone, particularly after all the costs. i find the phrase "throwing money away on rent" to be misleading when there are tons of throwaway costs associated with buying in the transaction fees, interest, taxes, insurance, renovations where you don't get back the value, etc. the fridge broke a year after i bought my condo and shit like that adds up and need to be factored in when you calculate where your break even point is.

bottom line is that i don't think people should ever look at homes as investments. all the other money you're spending on the home would do much better being invested in the stock market.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23770176)

"in the first few years of a ~$1100/mo mortgage payment, the bulk of your payment is all toward interest so you're building very little equity."

At current rates, about 28% of the first year's payments go to interest and about 72% goes to interest.

http://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769555)

You can also deduct the mortgage interest from your taxes and depending on if you want to move out or not you can pay a little extra (depending on your terms) and get the house to be even more cash flow positive and generate another 10K or so a year, plus the equity in the house.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23768338)

Yeah, which non-shitty city offers that?

It's not 2010 anymore.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769558)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769051)

just do it, bro. I did, and I love it. I'm finally not getting raped by rent all the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769090)

So all of you renting h8ers can suck it.

I also don't appreciate your homophobic insult, sir

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23769578)

"Buy a home = financial investment" is literally boomer flame. No one thought that before boomers, and no one should think that after boomers. At best, it's a long-term store of wealth and nothing more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23770010)

I bought a starter trailer and it has been so much cheaper than renting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#23770725)

The number of cities with 'million-dollar' starter homes has nearly tripled since 2019

The number of cities where a starter home is worth $1 million or more has grown from 84 five years ago to 237 today.

Nearly half of these cities with "million-dollar" starter homes are in California.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-million-starter-home-norm-120300606.html

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2173998&forum_id=2#47894117

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48928960)

try $1.5M a year and $100 to eat good food vs $70k a year and $10 포장마차 slop

Date: May 14th, 2025 12:46 AM

Author: Pope Leo XXX

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2388973&forum_id=2#48928957

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48928981)

DURR DURR

"In South Korea, apartments are often rented using the Jeonse system, which involves a large deposit (also called "key money") instead of monthly rent. This deposit can be 50% to 80% of the property's market value, and it's returned to the tenant at the end of the lease. While not a traditional down payment like in property purchases, it functions similarly as an upfront payment securing the rental. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeonse

SUPERIOR GOOK CULTURE!

DURR DURR

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48929010)

LMAO YOU FUCKING RETARD

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48932140)

NYUUG RENTED HIS APARTMENT THROUGH JONSAE DURR DURR

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48932175)

DURR DURR

"In South Korea, apartments are often rented using the Jeonse system, which involves a large deposit (also called "key money") instead of monthly rent. This deposit can be 50% to 80% of the property's market value, and it's returned to the tenant at the end of the lease. While not a traditional down payment like in property purchases, it functions similarly as an upfront payment securing the rental. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeonse

SUPERIOR GOOK CULTURE!

DURR DURR

Date: May 14th, 2025 1:39 AM

Author: .,.,....,.,.,.,:,,:,....,:::,....,:,.,.:...,:.::,

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48929010

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48932145)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48932174)

In a new report, demographer Wendell Cox traces this to the failure to build enough new housing units, particularly the single-family homes that consumers most desire. In the United States, homebuilders built about one million fewer homes (including rental units) in 2024 than in 1972 when there were 130 million fewer Americans. One estimate puts the US housing market short by about 4.5 million homes.

But the housing crisis is a global phenomenon that hits the middle and working classes hardest. In large part due to high housing prices, notes the “OECD in Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle-Class”, the middle-class faces ever rising costs relative to incomes, so much so that its very survival is threatened. “The cost of essential parts of the middle-class lifestyle have increased faster than inflation,” it notes. Housing prices have been rising “three times faster than household median income over the last two decades.”

Even in prosperous and communitarian Switzerland, Zurich studios sell for well over $1 million, and small houses for considerably more than that. Even affluent people cannot afford down payments, despite the overwhelming financial advantages to homeowners.

This housing shortfall and high prices are seen throughout the Anglosphere. Australia’s historically high rates of homeownership have all but collapsed among those aged between 25 and 34 years old, plummeting from more than 60 per cent in 1981 to only 45 per cent in 2016. The proportion of owner-occupied housing has dropped by 10 per cent in the last 25 years. In the United Kingdom in 2022-23, 39 per cent of 25-34 year-olds owned their home, compared to 57 per cent of the same age cohort in 1995. A rising proportion of British millennials are likely to remain renters for life.

Similarly, US millennials were already less likely in 2015 to be homeowners than baby boomers and Gen-Xers. By 2021, home ownership among those aged 25-34 had dropped from 45.4 per cent in 2000 to 41.6 per cent. Record numbers of first-time buyers are stuck on the sidelines as housing affordability stands at the lowest level for which there are data series, while one in three pay over 30 per cent of their income in mortgage or rent.

Across the board, Wendell Cox’s new report lays the blame for this situation on the British-born idea of urban containment, with its roots in the UK’s 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. This policy sought to steer development towards higher density core cities and away from the lower density periphery, forcing people into “living smaller, living closer” – whether they like it or not.

The results have been dreadful. As early as the 1970s, British planner Peter Hall suggested that the “speculative value” of land with planning permission in the UK was five to 10 times higher than that of land without planning permission. Virtually all the most expensive markets in Cox’s new affordability study – outside number one Hong Kong – operate some form of urban containment, including such cities as Vancouver, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and, of course, London.

All these areas now have prices that are nine times or more higher than median incomes, which is also three times the historic rate. Many of the markets closer to that historic norm – in Texas, the South and the Midwest US – do not have such policies.

Nor does focusing on higher density lower prices, as is sometimes argued. In fact, US data suggests a positive correlation between greater density and housing costs. Among 53 major metros, those with more single-family housing and larger lot sizes (key indicators of lower density) have substantially better housing affordability. One recent study found that the median family in San Jose would need 125 years (150 in Los Angeles) to save a down payment; in Atlanta or Houston the figure is 12 years.

Perhaps most damning, these policies are clearly not effective in creating more housing; Portland, a US pioneer in urban containment, embraces high density housing but high prices have driven multi-family construction to the lowest level in a decade. In California, which has experienced similar stagnation, notes a recent RAND study, policy-driven delays, strict architectural standards, green mandates and the requirement to pay union-level wages have pushed the cost of construction of subsidised apartments twice as high as in Texas.

How do we begin to solve this problem? It should not be too difficult, once urban containment and other policies are effectively scrapped. With relatively low population growth – particularly outside the migrant population – there is no huge spike in fundamental demand as occurred, for example, in the 1950s and 1960s. The rise of remote work, migration to smaller urban areas, as well as new technologies for building, including the use of 3D printers, actually offer the chance to build more affordable housing.

The bad news is that this crisis is largely self-inflicted. The good news is that it can be solved, if our political class can find the will to change and jettison policies that have led to this disastrous situation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48963539)

DURR DURR

https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/housing-affordability-crisis-europe-global-3e0d969a

The Housing Affordability Crisis Is Going Global

"Politicians in Canada, the U.K., Australia, Germany and South Korea are trying to boost construction by easing rules, including opening up undeveloped land for construction. National governments, though, are hamstrung by state and local rules that favor existing homeowners over renters, Hughes and Hilber said."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48963561)

https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5730198&mc=3&forum_id=2#48963584

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48963618)

NYUUG SO STUPID FOR RENTING AND NOT BUYING ON TOP OF A HOUSING BUBBLE DURR DURR

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2326944&forum_id=2#48963654)