(no title)
const_cast | 5 months ago
Made up numbers: consider:
Mortgage: 2,000 Home price: 200,000 Difference from rent: -500
Rent: 1,500 Home price: 0 Difference from mortgage: +500
If (500/month invested over 30 years) > (200,000 appreciated home price over 30 years) then you came out on top by renting.
It might be or it might not be.
Also, the type of asset matters. Stock might be a more flexible asset than real estate, in which case you should probably rent depending on your location.
carlosjobim|5 months ago
const_cast|5 months ago
- multi-unit buildings are significantly more efficient in cost per-unit.
The cost of a 1500 sqft apt and 1500 sqft home is not the same, the home is going to cost a few times more. Because it's on its own lot, with its own land, and it's on the ground, and it gets its only municipalities (gas, water, steam, electricity), and then it also has its own road requirements.
Basically with, say, a 12 story block you can get hundreds of units for the same amount amount of land (and associate cost) as a few homes. And then you can spread the cost of municipalities, too.
Even with just a duplex or dingbat you're looking at the same land costs and the equivalent accomodations as a few homes. But it doesn't scale linearly, meaning a duplex != the cost of 2 homes.
Also large landlords (corps) can spread the cost of price across all their units. Meaning, like Walmart, some are loss leaders for competitive reasons and some make more money than they need to.
Interestingly, the cost per unit continues to go down until about 12 stories. Then it goes back up, because of building requirements. Which is why commie blocks were historically 8 to 12 stories tall, it's the cheapest way to build housing.