News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Young 'to be poorer than parents at every stage of life' by Scarblac on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @01:59PM (#10622743)
> I'm never buying again. If they want me to sink 30 years of my life into monthly payments, I'm going to need a job that will last for at least 30 years of steady paychecks.

I don't get this. If you rent instead, you'll just be sinking monthly payments into that (maybe more, maybe less than with buying).

And there's no need for a job that lasts 30 years, you just need to keep the ability to make the payment every month. But that is also true when renting.

Re:Young 'to be poorer than parents at every stage of life' by logfromblammo on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @02:42PM (#10623072)
You don't understand, because you have probably just done the math on paper, rather than lived it.

Anecdotally, I have realized more value per dollar spent on rented homes than on purchased homes. If I had never purchased a home in the past, renting instead, I believe without a shred of doubt that I would have a greater net worth today.

I cannot make a rational case for home purchase now, because I cannot guarantee so many years of steady paychecks within an acceptable commuting radius of any home I could buy. Look back 30 years before now, to 1985. How many jobs existed then in the U.S. that no longer exist now? Do you think you can predict what the job market will look like in 2045?

If your job was to make buggy whips, would you feel safe making a 30-year financial commitment in 1890? Perhaps, but the Ford Model T came in 1908. Technology develops faster now. I get the impression that jobs that don't even exist this year may become obsolete before 30 years elapse, and yet employers still routinely hire based on specific experience rather than aptitude or trainability.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that I will never take on debt to buy a home again, and I don't expect to ever be able to afford to buy anything without doing so.

Re:Young 'to be poorer than parents at every stage of life' by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @04:34PM (#10623723)
It's a bit more complicated than what you're presenting. Let's say I'm a buggy whip maker in 1890. I buy a house. 1908 comes, and I'm out of a job. I can't afford the house. But if I'm living in a town that wasn't too dependent on the buggy whip factory, then there are probably people who are looking to buy houses, so I'm still able to get out of the house without losing my shirt.

The problem comes when the town's economy crashed (because the buggy whip factory was the big business), or the nation's economy crashes (recession/depression/downturn/whatever), and I have to sell my house. Then I can really get burned.

And the next problem: When I buy a house, I can't be sure what the economic environment will be when I need to sell it.

I would say that, over the long haul, if you live in a town where there's enough variety of employment that you can probably continue to find work even if you lose your current job, most of the time owning your own house is a net win. (Be sure to hear all the caveats in that sentence!)

Re:Young 'to be poorer than parents at every stage of life' by turar on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @10:05PM (#10625130)
It's tough to go against the US government who's subsidizing homeowners at renters' expense though. 30-year fixed mortgages are unheard of elsewhere in the world, that's why they all have to be underwritten by Fannie/Freddie in the ultimate end. And with where the interests rate are now, it's tough to resist locking that in for 30 years. And of course, mortgage interest tax deductions on top of that.
Re:Young 'to be poorer than parents at every stage of life' by Scarblac on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @04:23PM (#10623683)
Fair enough. I'm lucky to live in a small country.