• Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    55 minutes ago

    The benefit of renting is that when shit breaks, maintenance fixes it so that you don’t have to muddle your way through trying to replace the oven or some shit. Also you don’t have to do yard work. A good landlord is one who understand that his job is to provide housing and maintain the property, and not sit on his ass collecting passive income/hoarding wealth.

    You can also up stakes and leave if something goes horribly wrong, and not repeatedly rebuild your house because of natural disasters or be stuck living next to the worst neighbor in history because you still owe $200k on the dirt you’re anchored to.

  • protist@retrofed.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The oil doesn’t necessarily just make a problem for your landlord. Fat/oil can clog sewers way down the line, causing problems for entire neighborhoods over time and requiring costly maintenance, which increases the costs of sewer service for everyone

    • kolmaskommentoija@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      4 hours ago

      And even if it creates a problem for your landlord only, it is you, who is going to pay for it, anyway. They will not just eat the loss - why would they? - they will increase the rent even more, than they would otherwise, to cover the costs.

      • kevinsky@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        The whole idea of willingly causing damage somewhere and somehow not being held accountable for it because it’s not your property is wild.

        If you have your landlord send a plumber to declog a drain clogged by a bunch of grease or wet wipes or some other garbage that shouldn’t go down the drain there’s no way you won’t get the bill for that where I live.

        There’s renters protection but not against your own acts of misuse.

        • socsa@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          It also means that if the home is ever put back onto the market and purchased by a family instead of a landlord, that person will end up dealing with the issue years down the line. It’s just overall kind of an edgy, poorly thought out idea.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        it is you, who is going to pay for it, anyway.

        Common misconception. If they could raise prices more over time, they already would. Costs are irrelevant.

  • HollowNaught@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I got an email like two weeks ago that there had been an increase on car break-ins recently

    Then when it came time to re-sign they decided to increase rent

    • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Nothing from stopping everyone from coming together to leave the property in mass if they increase rent.

        • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I’m definitely biased, I keep only about what I can move in my truck. Also around here it’s almost trivial to furnish a two bedroom place with used and free stuff for like $300 to $500.

          • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 minutes ago

            Moving is incredibly expensive and unrealistic for most people in the US unfortunately.

            It costs a lot more to move into a cheaper place than it does to absorb the increase.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    10 hours ago

    If the housing market goes into the shitter…

    … the renter pays less rent.

    … the home “owner” still has to pay the same mortgage, and will continue to pay so they can eventually own the house (actually own it) worth a fraction of what they paid for it.

    Unless you have cash on-hand to buy a house, you have to get a mortgage. So it’s actually the bank that owns the house, they just let you live there while you pay back a large debt.

    The reason why houses are so expensive is because they are considered investments, not just places to live. That creates a politcal incentive to keep housing prices high because a lot of people will lose that “equity” if the price of housing decreased. Most of the benefits listed under home “ownership” centers around a house being an investment.

    The boomers aren’t getting any younger, as more of them die, more houses go onto the market while the incentive for maintaining that equity for people that already own a house decreases. That “stability” thing listed as a benefit of “owning” a house may not hold true forever.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      If the housing market goes into the shitter…

      The owner probably still comes out ahead, no matter what.

      Think of the 2008 housing crash. Must have sucked to be paying a fixed mortgage when the market went down. Except the person bought the house in 2004 and was paying the same mortgage they were then, and that’s still less than typical rent after a crash calmed things down a bit.

      You don’t pay the mortgage of the house as it would sell right now, you pay the mortgage based on the purchase price that over years almost certainly trends lower. So as the landlord prices according to current market, the owner costs are largely based on the prices from years ago (except property taxes and insurance).

      That’s of course assuming you have a mortgage at all, and ignoring the fact that the mortgage goes away entirely at some point.

      One thing I will say where renting wins hands down is if you are going to only be there a couple of years. You probably would have needed the mortgage, the property value wouldn’t have increased by that much, and the loan origination fees, interest, and various other closing costs means you likely would lose money selling it that soon. The renter may be no worse off financially, but they are no better off then either. Except they can just leave and not worry about finding a replacement.

      The boomers aren’t getting any younger, as more of them die, more houses go onto the market

      Problem being that many of those houses suck. They are likely to be where there’s no housing shortage already, because no one is interested in living there. They tend to be old, and not charmingly over a hundred years old but still standing; like 50 years old with questions of asbestos and polybutylene; with dubious insulation at its best and likely decayed a bit. Terribly in need of maintenance with busted HVAC, rodent destroyed ductwork, dangerous wiring, and moldy crawlspace. Cracked foundations and sagging structures suggesting the wrong storm could just ruin it. They also tend to be relatively tiny compared to houses built in the last couple of decades. I had a boomer relative die, and what did their children manage to get for the house, after months and months on the market? $60k. We were shocked but that was actually a bit higher than houses in their area went for.

    • finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      6 hours ago

      If the housing market goes into the shitter…

      … the renter pays less rent.

      In nearly 30 years of renting, the rent has never gone down, regardless of what the market is doing.

      • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Depends on location. I had a rent drop in Knoxville once. Excess units in a bad local economy will do it.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Now the key question is did it drop below the price the owner would have been paying? Assuming the owner had it for at least 3 or 4 years, the rate drop was probably still not below their loan payments based on the purchase price.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      So it’s actually the bank that owns the house, they just let you live there while you pay back a large debt.

      Ackshually you own the house, the bank just has the right to take it if you don’t keep up payments.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Exactly. I roll my eyes at the idiot home owners who are happy when real estate prices are going up. If the only real estate you own is the one your are living in, a price increase has zero benefits for you. You can sell it for a higher price, but unless you want to live on the streets, that means you buy another, which has also gone up in price. Congrats, I guess.

      The only people benefiting are real estate investors, which 99% of people are not.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It mostly just means higher property tax.

        Now there are opportunities to get better interest rates by taking a loan out on your house, but that’s depressing. It is, however, a common thing for older people who can’t live on their retirement benefits otherwise.

    • bluefootedbooby@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 hours ago

      But on the other hand, if market does not go to shit, the rent increases, while your mortgage stays the same, on as asset that increases in value.

      Houses may be considered an investment, but at the same time they are a place to live.

      And when boomers die, their house gets inherited by a family member, not just going to a ‘pool of houses’. I think the inheritor either moves in, or sells because they already have a house

    • 13igTyme@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Making large principle payments significantly reduces the paid interest.

      Also for the average price of a home and the average interest rate monthly payments are cheaper than average rent.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I will say that at least right now in my area, renting is actually a bit lower than the expected mortgage payment for comparable housing. However, that advantage would shift after 2-3 years as rent goes up but the mortgage would have stayed the same.

      • oyo@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Having an interest rate significantly lower than high yield saving account returns significantly reduces my interest in making any extra payments.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 hours ago

        And the principle and interest can’t change (unless you did something like an ARM). Escrow and insurance might go up, but that won’t remotely pace inflation.

  • EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 hours ago

    If you’ve ever had to buy and sell a house, it’s a real pain in the ass. If you’re not really sure about a city yet, renting for a year makes more sense than buying, especially if you’re sure you want to stay longer than a hotel would make sense

    Ummm that’s the only situation I can think of where it’s not just the picture on the right

    • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Also if you have no intention of staying in the city at all. If I take a 12 week contract it would be ridiculous to stay in a hotel for all 3 months.

      • 13igTyme@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Maybe depends on the contact. I’ve seen travel contracts for healthcare where they’ll sometimes put you in a hotel and cover the cost.

        • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          they’ll also cover a rental and I can have a living room and a washer and depending on the type of stipend pocket the rest.

  • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If the furnace goes out its the landlord who pays - Renting

    If the furnace goes out you are out $1000s - Home Owner

    Only one I can think of is the cost of fixing shit.

    • Platypus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Counterpoint: the landlord is paying with your rent money. You’re still out just as much, just spread out monthly with a profit margin on top.

      • Comrade_Spood@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Plus, that is assuming your landlord follows through in a timely manner. Plenty of examples of landlords being assholes and procrastinating or outright refusing to repair essential things. Even if you (are able to) take them to court, that takes additional time.

        • zikzak025@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Or that they even reasonably fix it.

          A homeowner can choose to get whatever works best for them. If they have their own preferences, or even want to spend a bit extra to get a “buy it for life” product, they can do whatever they want.

          A landlord will do whatever is considered “good enough” for the lowest cost. The landlord will always opt for the cheapest solution for any given problem because they’re not the one that needs to live with it.

        • bort@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Plenty of examples of landlords being assholes and procrastinating or outright refusing to repair essential things

          happened to me a couple years ago. The solution was a friendly-worded letter, notifying them that we will not pay any rent until the thing is fixed, and informing them about related court decisions. (this was in germany, your laws may differ)

      • CannedYeet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        If we’re talking a major cost, the landlord will probably amortize it over a long period, so if you’re only renting a short period you won’t pay for it all.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Unless you have enough cash to buy a house, the bank is making a profit margin on the mortgage.

        • jnod4@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 hours ago

          And landlords are making a profit margin on a mortgage as well, unless they own it, then they make an even bigger margin

      • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It would be cool if you could run a coop where you all paid in the amortized cost of repairs on a schedule and if an incident happened before expected you withdraw the cash and keep paying in after.

        But this would get abused on both ends by fraudulent claims and petty managers. You’d have to be very selective.

    • rImITywR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Windows, radiators and water heater are 30+ years old and heat has to be on full blast 24/7 to keep the place above 20C in the winter, and multiple window AC units are required to keep the place below 30C in the summer. Landlord pays nothing to update, and renter keeps paying huge energy bills, and being uncomfortable the whole time. - renting

      Homeowner spends a few grand to buy efficient furnace, central AC, and windows and saves money on energy bills every month and upgelrades pay for themselves while staying nice and comfy. - home owner