• EatYouWell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years 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
      ·
      2 years 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
        ·
        2 years 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
          ·
          2 years 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
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years 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
          ·
          2 years 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.

    • Chris@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years 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

        • Beelzebabe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years 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.)

            • Beelzebabe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years 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.