It's really insane how if I tried to buy the same house I bought 5 years ago my payment would be right under 3x. At 40 it would be almost cheaper for me to retire than to move -- especially from Austin to California.

I bought 8 years ago. My mortgage is a couple hundred less than a crappy one bedroom apartment now. Would probably be better off getting a job at Walmart or something than move.

> My mortgage is a couple hundred less than a crappy one bedroom apartment now.

the total cost of ownership is not just the mortgage interest payments - it must include the cost of the equity you invested, which is both the initial deposit as well as any principle payments made so far.

If you added all this up, it would be quite likely similar to the cost in rent of a similar house/apartment.

Then I'd have no equity and be at the mercy of the whims of a landlord. I'd rather take a big pay cut.

I think the idea is that if you rented that whole time and invested your money in the stock market you'd be just as well off

Not true, you don’t have the same stability as person owning a house does.

You always have to be prepared to move, can’t change stuff without landlords approval, can’t buy nice stuff (good luck moving your 80 inch TV with your nice leather couch).

Yes, if you value these things that's a reason to buy a house, but it doesn't make it a good financial decision

“Just as well off” implies having equal parts, or I missed something?

Right, whether it's better than renting financially depends on a lot of factors.

There's benefits to renting too, you have to make the right choice for yourself.

Just as well off financially, obviously.

None of this is relevant though. “Not true, you don’t have the same flexibility as a person renting does. You always have to be prepared for significant maintenance, etc. etc.”

The point is that financially we expect that two approaches to be comparable, perhaps with renters paying a bit for that flexibility and shorter term commitment. (That they aren’t over a particular period is fortunate for those that managed to time the market).

It's probably true that you'd be financially equivalent, but some people don't prefer to move with little notice due to rental changes forced upon them.

I suppose if you account for this extra cost (which may be non-monetary, but one can always assign the inconvenience using a dollar figure...) then renting could be worse off.

Yeah, I don't even care if owning a house is financially worse than renting. It's mine! There's no landlord who decides to inspect it, or evict me. The cost of the mortgage is subject to a pre-determined process, and I can fix it to provide predictability. I can extend it, improve it, fix it or redecorate it. It represents power over my circumstances, and long term stability. How do you put monetary value on that?

> How do you put monetary value on that?

it is possible to make a guess at the monetary value of these advantages, by comparing the difference between the cost of renting vs cost of owning (including cost of capital). Of course, the value of owning is different between different people (some might prefer renting due to the flexibility of moving at a moments' notice for example).

And in fact, if it turns out that owning is lower cost in total (even taking into account the cost of capital), then it would make a lot of sense to buy! And in some areas, this is definitely true.

Thats not very relevant to a current choice between moving or taking a pay cut.

> I think the idea is that if you rented that whole time and invested your money in the stock market you'd be just as well off

The OP said their mortgage is already lower than rent, which is typical, so it is the homeowner who has extra money left over (compared to if they were renting) to invest every month. The renter has ever-increasing rent swallowing up any raises, so not much left over to invest.

Idk my mortgage is about the same as rent in a medium apartment in dfw and def. Less than rent for a house and dfw is not a super high cost place to live. I have a family of 4 people living here plus a MIL in a smaller house built adjacent and over the garage. Renting the equivalent would mean probably 3 separate apartments.

The big question we should be asking ourselves, particularly in a mostly virtual service economy, is why it is the people that have to move and not the businesses that need the people.

Why do we have a society where social standing is determined by how far away from your mum you have to live to get a job?

Ultimately this will be determined in the marketplace. The best thing a startup can do at present is master remote management. Then it can get good people cheap.

Regarding your first point, Businesses do move as well to follow Talent. They just do so very slowly because it is quite expensive.

IMO remote works better in big co vs. small co, since you will never interact with a large amount of teams in person. They can be and will be many offices away. Big co has issues in adopting the latest tools, but that's about it.