Preferences

WSJ is shilling for companies like Blackrock and other private equity that wants to rent you housing at a markup compared to the ownership costs.

Of course they'll be pushing a narrative in which you shouldn't own your own home, the main source of financial security and peace of mind for when you are no longer able or willing to work a grueling 9-5 schedule.

Believe it or not, ownership costs aren't scary and, in most cases (unless you get fleeced by contractors) are very predictable and still cheaper than rent (especially in light of recent rent increases).

Personally, I wouldn't just treat this article with a grain of salt, I would disregard it entirely.


Home ownership costs are pretty low if you understand that everything is amortized. You buy a new roof every ~25 years, then you think of it as putting $50 a month into savings so you buy that roof when it comes up. Furnace in 20 years, hot water heater in 10. But instead people seem to want to wait until things blow up then treat it as a sudden large expense.
I'm trying to understand your point of view. Where is the extra money coming from to amortize the costs of major repair items? I think you are correct. It's just that nobody actually considers the amortization costs when calculating what they can afford.

The example of a 30 year roof replacement is great because it nicely aligns with a 30 year mortgage. So in reality, the cost of homeownership should be the monthly cost of servicing the mortgage payments PLUS the amortized cost of roof replacement. Your real estate agent has no reason to tell you that a 200k house is actually 240k. Because by the time you "own" the house, it is due for a 40k roof replacement. With the amortized cost maybe you can't actually afford the house.

- Mortgage monthly payment - Amortized: -- cost of roof replacement -- cost of at least 2 refrigerators, more likely 4 refrigerators -- cost of at least 1 new air conditioning system + at least 100% of the cost of a new system over the lifespan of repairs of the current system -- Cost of at least 1 new garage door system -- Cost of at least 4-5 toilet replacements by a plumber over 30 years -- Cost of at least 1 whole home repainting, more likely 2 occurrences -- Cost of wear and tear; hard to quantify but Likely very significant.

This is not even considering the amortized costs of personal time. The time spent servicing chores like grasscutting, pruning, weed pulling, touchup painting, repairs caused by wear and tear.

This is basically the concept of being "house poor" right? You have a house, you make payments on it, but you are poor and have no extra money after expenses. Maintaining a house costs money, and it should be accounted for. A Real Estate agent will at best take the inspection and suggest knocking a few thousand off the price for these new things. But their job is over once you buy it. The bank just wants you to make payments and doesn't really care if you put the house in disrepair.

Personally I think people should consider having a house repair savings account (or Money Market Fund or CD Account or whatever).

When I was doing napkin math it seemed pretty surprising to me that, for example, a 30 year roof replacement at an estimated $30,000 amortized over 30 years yields 1000/year, or $83 per month.

Now consider a set of tires for a car, replaced every 6 years, at $1200. That amortizes to $16 per month.

The replacement tires is only 4% of the cost of a roof replacement (1200/30000) but the amortized monthly cost of the tires is nearly 20% of the monthly cost of the roof replacement (16/83).

Long story short, I got increasing anxiety doing this math and watching my expected savings income evaporate over the long term as these amounts added up.

> But instead people seem to want to wait until things blow up then treat it as a sudden large expense.

It's fine to wait if you actually are saving money and putting it in the stock market. But USA in general has a savings problem, so of course it blows up on people.

Incidentally, Blackrock doesn't buy homes. Other private equity, combined, own less than half a percent of single-family homes in the US.
> WSJ is shilling for companies like Blackrock and other private equity

95% of WSJ is shilling for corporations. They're the most out-of-touch rag to currently exist.

How many times have they blamed "Millennials" (While somehow still believing that 20-30 year olds are Millennials) for businesses failing, rather than examining how businesses have enshittified their product or simply failed to adapt to changing market demands?

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal