If a homeowner rents their place for more than it costs them in mortgage + property taxes and makes $200 on top, that's fine and quite a nice deal. However you're suggesting they're also subsidizing their own rental and +$200.

That only makes sense if they're renting well below their means or in a different market entirely while their home is in an ultra prime location. If not the renter of their home should simply have rented out the place the owners are living at a substantial discount.

New Orleans has wild real estate. It’s not San Francisco but it’s way above the average income here and swings wildly from neighborhood to neighborhood. Home prices flip radically even just a few blocks over. We’re talking $400k->$800k if you move 5, maybe 6 blocks. Sometimes fewer than that - saw a near-turnkey place go for $500k and another for $900k 2 blocks from each other right by me about 3 or 4 years ago (obviously the latter was very nice new construction, but you get the point).

They own in a solid neighborhood, one that was “up and coming” 5 years ago, and rent in an average one (it’s in a higher risk flood zone which factors in a ton). Irish Channel vs. midcity, if you know the area at all.

They don’t have kids and see their rental as a place to sleep. It’s small, barely what I’d qualify as enough for two people. But it works for them so power to them I guess. Making out like bandits.

I get why you’re skeptical but it’s not like I’m lying here. Not sure why I would? The whole point of this anecdote is to show how crazy these interest rates were.