is it sad to still rent when you are 35+ years old?

or Jersey

It’s not sad at all.

We owned a home for 8 years, renovated it quite a bit, and sold it when we moved to a new state. We lost about 80k on the deal when you look at our renovation expenses and what we walked away with after closing fees.

Now we are renting in the new state, but because we have the equity money from house #1 and interest rates are so low, our monthly rent for a 3 bedroom apartment is equal to a mortgage payment on a 500k house. So, it makes sense for us to buy again and have a yard and more space.

In San Diego, the median home price is 650k. Let that sink in. This will buy you a home in the eastern part of the city, away from the beaches and any nice areas to run. A home in the nicer parts of the city/county- and anywhere you could run from your doorstep to good trails - would cost over a million. To rent in a nice area can be as low as 1800-2000. It would take 30 years to have spent more for a house than for rent , more than 50 in a nice area. A lot of desirable city markets are like this. Buying makes sense only if you plan on raising a family there.

Only socialists rent

the La Jollan wrote:

In San Diego, the median home price is 650k. Let that sink in. This will buy you a home in the eastern part of the city, away from the beaches and any nice areas to run. A home in the nicer parts of the city/county- and anywhere you could run from your doorstep to good trails - would cost over a million. To rent in a nice area can be as low as 1800-2000. It would take 30 years to have spent more for a house than for rent , more than 50 in a nice area. A lot of desirable city markets are like this. Buying makes sense only if you plan on raising a family there.

I doubt you could rent a million dollar place anywhere for $2000, but still your point is valid. In very high cost of living areas it’s generally cheaper to rent than buy - and I say this as someone who owns a condo in a city that would be cheaper to rent, I was browsing San Diego properties on Zillow today and they are much cheaper than here. I would never have paid cash for this place, as I have for investment properties (in lower cost of living cities that net a decent cash flow), but getting a very low rate on a 30-year mortgage means over the long haul I should see capital appreciation that yields a good ROI. Whenever I leave my current place I may be cash flow negative on this unit but I’ll just rent it out while building equity and holding for long-term appreciation. It worked out for me once before in a very high COL city, rented out for a few years after I left and then sold it for about $170k in appreciation, although of course there are no guarantees. 30 years is a long time and while a $3-4k monthly payment may seem like a lot now, inflation (even at the lower rates of the past decades) will mean the effective burden is much lower as time progresses.

In lower cost of living areas you’ll often pay less buying than renting, even with just 20% down. But I don’t think I’d ever buy a place in Manhattan, your taxes and maintenance alone can be almost as much as rent - doesn’t matter your age, renting could definitely be the way to go but it’s very market dependent. I plan to hold a number of investment properties as retirement income, but could see myself renting then if I move to a place such as San Diego.

A 12 year old thread.

If you had bought during the housing slump you would be sitting with a lot of equity in your place. Well, at least in certain markets you would be such as NYC, SF, and Seattle.

no it isn't if you don't care about the opinions of others. 36, renter currently

todays renter can be tomorrows owner

it's about where you are headed that counts

You are not a loser but when you can buy do. All these people talking about renting somehow being financially more sense forget you pay a mortgage for 25 years and have a house vs renting for 60 years and having sweet fa.