• EatYouWell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, they aren’t. Not everyone wants the hassle of owning and maintaining a property, or going a few hundred grand in debt to buy a non-liquid asset.

    Apartments and rental units do serve a purpose.

    • goetzit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not everyone, but the vast majority of everyone, and even those who don’t want to buy would still probably be better off with owning instead of renting.

      “Going a few hundred grand in debt to buy a non-liquid asset” a house is probably the best asset you could buy for yourself, and also, do you think you’re saving money renting? Do you think a landlord is losing money on his mortgage? You’re covering the mortgage anyway, and then a premium for not having it in your name.

      • goldenbough@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Renting over owning is a more stable outlay (no “surprise, you need a new water heater” expenses for renters) and it gives flexibility for moving with any kind of frequency. I agree that home ownership should be more attainable and affordable, but it’s not a clean win 100% of the time for everyone.

        • Arbiter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re still paying for the water heater, the expense is just hidden over long term inflated rent prices.

          • goldenbough@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, a buffer built into the rental price (“inflated” is a loaded term; rents can be inflated, but a rental price set to cover mortgage and amortized expenses isn’t by definition inflated), but it’s still stable.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, also way more stable in countries where you are not protected by the law and may be told get outta the property you’re renting less than a month in advance. And in countries where you’re protected, the landlord will usually get in your arse checking if you’re a fraud, this makes renting quite a bit more of a problem.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No one wants to rent. Sure landlords serve a purpose in this capitalist hellhole, but if people could live in a single family home that they own most would take that option to rather than be beholden to some shithead that takes a 3rd of your income and just brings you problems

      • Knightfox@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        While it’s true that it would be better for them in the long term, it’s also true that some people prefer convenience.

        I have a coworker that pays the power company extra each month so that if her water heater dies they’ll replace it for her. Why the fuck does the power company offer this service and by the time she needs one she will have more than paid for one.

        Lots of people don’t change their own oil in their cars, it’s easy and cheaper, but people don’t want to do it.

        Coffee… that’s all I’m gonna say on that topic.

        Renting is a service some people want, just like some people want to live in an HOA.

        More people would probably buy a house if they could just pay the mortgage, similar to a rent to own setup, but that’s not an option available to most people.

        • Beelzebabe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wouldn’t the convenient (and cheaper) situation here not be to rent, but to own and hire a handyman when needed? I’m just not sure how a landlord offers any kind of convenience to anyone. (Maybe there’s something I’m missing of course.)

          • Knightfox@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are absolutely correct, but it still requires making calls, coordinating with a handyman, being available when they come by, etc. It’s the same logic for why some landlords hire property managers. If being a landlord is so easy you’d think they wouldn’t need to hire someone to specifically manage their properties.

            • Beelzebabe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              While I agree with you on paper, I’ve never had a landlord make it easy or convenient for any of those things in my experience. Usually they’re MIA and can’t seem to get anything done without a fuss honestly. Could just be my luck/the types of places I rent to be fair on that though.

              • Knightfox@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah and I saw a recent post saying that roughly 66% of Millennials would like to buy if it were affordable for them.

                Rental experiences all come down to the details, how expensive is it, what extra costs (can you have pets) and benefits (do you have laundry in the rental or is it a shared space), is public transportation more accessible, etc.

                Back when I rented my washing machine broke and the rental company had a new one installed the same day, the bus route went right up to my building, and the Greenway trail was adjacent to the complex. They decided to increase rent by $100 so I looked at buying a house and found a condo I could afford. The condo was $300 cheaper (including the HOA fee) than the new rent, but the bus didn’t come to where my condo was, the Greenway trail was 10 min road biking away, and when the HOA decided we had to install new lights and doors I had to pay for that (luckily I was able to do the labor myself, but a lot of people couldn’t). Before I sold and moved the HOA was about to replace the roof on my building and we would have all had to pay out of pocket our portion (which equated to approximately 3.75x what I paid for the mortgage and HOA fee, so an extra 3.75 months worth of payments).

                Also, a lot of places have more or less protections for renters which can impact things.