Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a renter by necessity since I've moved around so much for work, now staying in the DC area for the long term and wondering this myself. I'm happy enough renting and can't really afford a townhome or SFH with the commute I want here currently, suspicious of condos as not much of an improvement on renting financially or in quality of life terms, but concerned that rents are going to rise faster over time than my salary while home prices also rise faster than my savings ability. I'm really not aure what the right answer is, keep renting for the lifestyle or buy somewhere far out and hate it for the sake of security.

Here’s the problem - you’re living in an area you can’t afford. You say you can’t afford to own with the commute you want. But farther out is where you should probably be living given your financials. Yes, rents will keep going up over time and eventually you’ll be a renter FOR LIFE. If you want to be financially responsible, you should rent a cheaper place farther out and sock away money.

NP.

I strongly disagree with your premise.

I live in a super-HCOL city and we choose to rent towards the center since we can't afford the down payment to own. Plus we move around a lot. We ARE saving and arguably more so as we don't have to worry about expensive repairs or renovations. Obviously we could save more if we accepted longer commutes, but we have young kids and our time with them is precious. We also value walkability and don't currently own a car.

We are approaching 40 and have never owned and have no plans to move to a cheaper city because that's where the lucrative job opportunities are. We talk about buying a "dream home" at some point once we decide where that would be.

If you have enough money to invest in other things and get a similar ROI as you would on owing the property you live in, then yes. OR if you have enough saved for retirement/will have enough without needing a residential property to sell.

Anonymous wrote:In the same boat. 37 and haven't bought yet. Lived in NYC for 10 yrs -- where renting esp in midtown Manhattan is super common. Moved here 2 yrs ago and started renting bc I didn't know the area enough to buy right away. Now I'm like -- eh should I buy, I don't want to live here really??

But I feel like people here look down on renters A LOT more than in NYC. I get plenty of "poor you" type of comments along with "oh but I'm sure you saved up a down payment in all those yrs in private practice, why not buy?" along with snide insinuations that I can't afford it.

IDK -- I've maxed out the 401k to 18k (or whatever the yearly IRS max was each yr) since age 25; and have built up an almost similar amount non retirement investments. So I don't get why people assume every renter is paycheck to paycheck and can't scramble together a down payment.

Because most renters DO live paycheck to paycheck. Most people who have money own property. NYC is a little different. My friends living in NY spend all of their money on travel, clothing, alcohol, private schools, outsourcing every task, etc. They will say that renting is a better deal and it is in NY, but that’s not why they are renting. They are renting because they make 500k but haven’t saved up the 500k necessary to buy a $2.0 mm apartment. So they stay in their 6k per month rental and keep spending. That’s wise you’ve been socking away your money, but most renters aren’t doing that. Most renters are spending a significant portion of their paycheck on rent.

In the same boat. 37 and haven't bought yet. Lived in NYC for 10 yrs -- where renting esp in midtown Manhattan is super common. Moved here 2 yrs ago and started renting bc I didn't know the area enough to buy right away. Now I'm like -- eh should I buy, I don't want to live here really??

But I feel like people here look down on renters A LOT more than in NYC. I get plenty of "poor you" type of comments along with "oh but I'm sure you saved up a down payment in all those yrs in private practice, why not buy?" along with snide insinuations that I can't afford it.

IDK -- I've maxed out the 401k to 18k (or whatever the yearly IRS max was each yr) since age 25; and have built up an almost similar amount non retirement investments. So I don't get why people assume every renter is paycheck to paycheck and can't scramble together a down payment.

I owned a home and one day sold it stayed in same neighborhood as a renter for 1 yr+ it was half the cost. One savings built into renting is a lower threshold for what you would rent. I would have never bought the house I rented but it was fine to rent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a renter by necessity since I've moved around so much for work, now staying in the DC area for the long term and wondering this myself. I'm happy enough renting and can't really afford a townhome or SFH with the commute I want here currently, suspicious of condos as not much of an improvement on renting financially or in quality of life terms, but concerned that rents are going to rise faster over time than my salary while home prices also rise faster than my savings ability. I'm really not aure what the right answer is, keep renting for the lifestyle or buy somewhere far out and hate it for the sake of security.

Here’s the problem - you’re living in an area you can’t afford. You say you can’t afford to own with the commute you want. But farther out is where you should probably be living given your financials. Yes, rents will keep going up over time and eventually you’ll be a renter FOR LIFE. If you want to be financially responsible, you should rent a cheaper place farther out and sock away money.

I'm living in an area where I can afford to rent perfectly well; my rent is around $1k less a month than the mortgage would be on the townhouses selling down the street. But going from a 1 hour to 2 hour commute when you have little kids...well, financial costs are not the only ones to consider, that's a huge amount of time to lose for the sake of (if I'm reading you right) renting somewhere cheaper to save more to buy slightly sooner. Rents don't get that low within public transit commuting distance, I doubt I could save more than $500/month at the absolute max end-of-the-commuter-line, and that's not going to make the difference between buying and renting in the DC area.

I get what you're saying, I just think that for some of us it's not quite that simple a calculation.

Plenty of people are fine in retirement and financially stable without ever owning. I know plenty of people that rented until they decided to retire and move to a rental in a new area or retirement community. In some ways that transition was easier. As long as you have a nice emergency fund, savings, etc. go for it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really not aure what the right answer is, keep renting for the lifestyle or buy somewhere far out and hate it for the sake of security.

If you hate it, that's not much security, is it?

I love all the people who think they're going to be able to take it with them, and will suffer for years just so they can have a bigger bank account at the end of life. That's not winning. I'd MUCH rather rent for 20 years in a neighborhood (or series of neighborhoods) that I love, than to buy a crappy place that is nowhere near where I want to be, just for the sake of saying I own something.

True but ending up a life long renter can be a recipe for disaster during retirement.

Or you have property in the area that is not that hot and you have the same problem as you can't downsize for retirement.

Many New Yorkers never own. If you have money in the bank and retirement funds, rent away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really not aure what the right answer is, keep renting for the lifestyle or buy somewhere far out and hate it for the sake of security.

If you hate it, that's not much security, is it?

I love all the people who think they're going to be able to take it with them, and will suffer for years just so they can have a bigger bank account at the end of life. That's not winning. I'd MUCH rather rent for 20 years in a neighborhood (or series of neighborhoods) that I love, than to buy a crappy place that is nowhere near where I want to be, just for the sake of saying I own something.

True but ending up a life long renter can be a recipe for disaster during retirement.

No, being a financial mess is a recipe for disaster. Stop equating renters with people who can't handle their finances. The people who have the means to pay for these luxury rentals are probably not going to be hurting in retirement, whether they have some builder-grade drywall and vinyl siding to call their very own or not.

Live the fabulous life you want to live. Max out your retirement accounts, diversity your other investments, and enjoy the fancy high-rise. Ignore people who criticize you for renting. They don't pay your bills, and they have no real interest in your finances -- often, they're just looking to validate their own (sometimes bad) choice to buy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really not aure what the right answer is, keep renting for the lifestyle or buy somewhere far out and hate it for the sake of security.

If you hate it, that's not much security, is it?

I love all the people who think they're going to be able to take it with them, and will suffer for years just so they can have a bigger bank account at the end of life. That's not winning. I'd MUCH rather rent for 20 years in a neighborhood (or series of neighborhoods) that I love, than to buy a crappy place that is nowhere near where I want to be, just for the sake of saying I own something.

True but ending up a life long renter can be a recipe for disaster during retirement.

Anonymous wrote:I'm really not aure what the right answer is, keep renting for the lifestyle or buy somewhere far out and hate it for the sake of security.

If you hate it, that's not much security, is it?

I love all the people who think they're going to be able to take it with them, and will suffer for years just so they can have a bigger bank account at the end of life. That's not winning. I'd MUCH rather rent for 20 years in a neighborhood (or series of neighborhoods) that I love, than to buy a crappy place that is nowhere near where I want to be, just for the sake of saying I own something.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a renter by necessity since I've moved around so much for work, now staying in the DC area for the long term and wondering this myself. I'm happy enough renting and can't really afford a townhome or SFH with the commute I want here currently, suspicious of condos as not much of an improvement on renting financially or in quality of life terms, but concerned that rents are going to rise faster over time than my salary while home prices also rise faster than my savings ability. I'm really not aure what the right answer is, keep renting for the lifestyle or buy somewhere far out and hate it for the sake of security.

Here’s the problem - you’re living in an area you can’t afford. You say you can’t afford to own with the commute you want. But farther out is where you should probably be living given your financials. Yes, rents will keep going up over time and eventually you’ll be a renter FOR LIFE. If you want to be financially responsible, you should rent a cheaper place farther out and sock away money.

I'm a renter by necessity since I've moved around so much for work, now staying in the DC area for the long term and wondering this myself. I'm happy enough renting and can't really afford a townhome or SFH with the commute I want here currently, suspicious of condos as not much of an improvement on renting financially or in quality of life terms, but concerned that rents are going to rise faster over time than my salary while home prices also rise faster than my savings ability. I'm really not aure what the right answer is, keep renting for the lifestyle or buy somewhere far out and hate it for the sake of security.