U.S. Housing Prices Explosion Making Repatriation a Less Realistic Option for Many?

[mania]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

A theme song for many of us. (You can Never Go Home)

Only if your too lazy to get it yourself ????

And perhaps Yes if wanting to exist at 3rd world prices your best off staying in 3rd world/developing countries

But...

Those that want to come home to the USA come on it is fine. If you need to work to make your smaller SS check enough or do not have savings investments  the wages paid to those who want to live here are quite excellent well above minimum wages

 

If you are truly incapable of work/impaired there are tons of benefits afforded to you that you will never see outside of your home country

 

But yes for those who have never set foot in the USA in decades or who only get their sensationalized news from MSM etc yes they better not come

as they never really wanted to & are just fear mongering others into their misery

 

Folks making it here have boots on the ground & use them to find great deals, jobs etc everywhere

 

For the expats that really want to return to their home country whether USA or Europe etc dont be too concerned with the chicken little's that constantly cry the sky is falling as again they actually have not been under these skies in decades. ????

 

[ThailandRyan]

Here is another reason some can not afford to return to the US, look at how the prices have climbed in the columns.

https://usdebtclock.org/home-sales.html

[Jingthing]

I'm happy for him that he can afford it but not everyone has the "skills" to cash in on Only Fans

 

[GinBoy2]

23 hours ago, mania said:

Only if your too lazy to get it yourself ????

And perhaps Yes if wanting to exist at 3rd world prices your best off staying in 3rd world/developing countries

But...

Those that want to come home to the USA come on it is fine. If you need to work to make your smaller SS check enough or do not have savings investments  the wages paid to those who want to live here are quite excellent well above minimum wages

 

If you are truly incapable of work/impaired there are tons of benefits afforded to you that you will never see outside of your home country

 

But yes for those who have never set foot in the USA in decades or who only get their sensationalized news from MSM etc yes they better not come

as they never really wanted to & are just fear mongering others into their misery

 

Folks making it here have boots on the ground & use them to find great deals, jobs etc everywhere

 

For the expats that really want to return to their home country whether USA or Europe etc dont be too concerned with the chicken little's that constantly cry the sky is falling as again they actually have not been under these skies in decades. ????

 

Jobs for retirees are 10 a penny right now.

 

Some folks do it because they need to supplement SS, or just as in my case having tried full time retirement it's just damn boring.

 

The airline industry is crying out for folks, which is where I work.

 

I earn nice pocket money and I get to travel free. We travel to Denver and San Diego every couple of weeks to visit the kids for free which is helluva perk.

 

Couple that with every billboard I pass in town desperately advertising for staff, no one can't work.

 

Jeez my local gas station chain is advertised on their door $17/hr plus a $1000 hiring bonus.

 

Lots of companies like us retirees, we are less flighty and tend to just do our jobs unlike the young 'un's.

 

So No.

Even a returnee on a low SS check doesn't need to be destitute unless by choice because there is plenty of work out there if you need it to supplement SS income

[Jingthing]

Fighting Back!

A very rare case but good to hear about.

The greedy landlord's excuse is weak. Says everyone can get on Section 8. As evidenced before no they can't! Being eligible is only the first step. 

 

 

[GinBoy2]

And this is why any retiree can live the good life

 

Dinner in Chicago tomorrow night!

 

Don't let anyone tell you can't repatriate and still enjoy the high life, you just gotta pick the right job!

 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by GinBoy2

[mania]

On 7/14/2022 at 8:41 AM, Jingthing said:

The greedy landlord's excuse is weak.

But of course if folks were renting condos where you own one in Thailand for 12,000 baht a month & you saw folks were poor you would rent yours for 4,000 because well your not greedy...come on

[GinBoy2]

On 7/11/2022 at 6:46 AM, KhunLA said:

<snip>

 

And there's plenty of public trans in Chester, bus & train line.  Far from car dependent.

Well there is a point there that outside of metro areas where housing is cheapest, public transit can be patchy at best. Maybe a couple of underused bus routes if you're lucky.

 

But then again you can buy a clunker for <$1000. May not be pretty but it'll do the job.

 

As for car insurance I strongly recommend joining AARP and using their car insurance plan.

 

We pay $1200 annually for two cars, full coverage and the maximum limits on everything.

 

Sometimes it does actually pay to be old!

Edited July 16, 2022 by GinBoy2

[Jingthing]

I recall this was asked for before. A credible source linking rising rents to homelessness. Here it is  The Government Accounting Office states that for every 100 dollar rent increase homelessness rises 9 percent.

 

 

[GypsyT]

After done some Zillow scanning I found there's unlimited reasonable places to rent and buy in the US.

My own problem and limitation is poor heath if cold and damp so that leaves the most expensive areas only places suitable to buy and I'm not willing to pay $ 500 000 for a shack.

Same goes to rent. I easily could accept to rent if reasonable in CA/AZ or HI.

 

Those "dirty farangs" are finding out same;

 

"Even with sky-high real estate prices, US properties are still a relative deal for many international buyers.
A typical property costs $28,570 per square meter in Hong Kong, $26,262 in London and $10,947 in Toronto. Meanwhile, it is $8,250 per square meter in San Francisco and just $3,170 in Miami. "

 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, GypsyT said:

After done some Zillow scanning I found there's unlimited reasonable places to rent and buy in the US.

My own problem and limitation is poor heath if cold and damp so that leaves the most expensive areas only places suitable to buy and I'm not willing to pay $ 500 000 for a shack.

Same goes to rent. I easily could accept to rent if reasonable in CA/AZ or HI.

 

Those "dirty farangs" are finding out same;

 

"Even with sky-high real estate prices, US properties are still a relative deal for many international buyers.
A typical property costs $28,570 per square meter in Hong Kong, $26,262 in London and $10,947 in Toronto. Meanwhile, it is $8,250 per square meter in San Francisco and just $3,170 in Miami. "

 

Zillow listings need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.  "Handyman's special" and "Needs a little TLC" are often used to describe houses that need to be demolished and rebuilt.  "Conveniently located" can mean a property in a loud and polluted industrial area.  "Secluded" can mean middle of nowhere with limited access to roads and utilities.

 

Zillow is a great tool for making a list of properties to look into, however 90% of the list won't make it past the first quick look.

 

Also, Miami is a place where you need to seriously research what you are getting into.  There are parts of the city where you don't want to live, structures built before modern hurricane construction codes that are just waiting for a big storm to blow them down, many areas that regularly flood, expensive and difficult to obtain insurance, etc.

Edited July 19, 2022 by heybruce

[Jingthing]

21 hours ago, GypsyT said:

After done some Zillow scanning I found there's unlimited reasonable places to rent and buy in the US.

My own problem and limitation is poor heath if cold and damp so that leaves the most expensive areas only places suitable to buy and I'm not willing to pay $ 500 000 for a shack.

Same goes to rent. I easily could accept to rent if reasonable in CA/AZ or HI.

 

Those "dirty farangs" are finding out same;

 

"Even with sky-high real estate prices, US properties are still a relative deal for many international buyers.
A typical property costs $28,570 per square meter in Hong Kong, $26,262 in London and $10,947 in Toronto. Meanwhile, it is $8,250 per square meter in San Francisco and just $3,170 in Miami. "

 

I find your point basically meaningless in the context of this topic.

 

"Reasonable" and "affordable" are of course subjective terms depending on the economic situation of the individual.

 

You seem to be indicating that in YOUR case YOU would have a wide choice of decent options to repatriate to. Well maybe anyway. Depending on if you insist on living in higher cost areas or not.

 

You don't want cold and damp?

 

What about Texas for one example? While places like Austin are in a bubble there are many less desirable but still perfectly OK places in Texas where a decent place could be bought for much less than 500k.

 

People BE CLEAR!

 

The premise of this topic is that repatriation would be very economically challenging for SOME / MANY expats in Thailand.

 

Not all!

 

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Jingthing

[GinBoy2]

On 7/19/2022 at 8:01 AM, GypsyT said:

After done some Zillow scanning I found there's unlimited reasonable places to rent and buy in the US.

My own problem and limitation is poor heath if cold and damp so that leaves the most expensive areas only places suitable to buy and I'm not willing to pay $ 500 000 for a shack.

Same goes to rent. I easily could accept to rent if reasonable in CA/AZ or HI.

 

Those "dirty farangs" are finding out same;

 

"Even with sky-high real estate prices, US properties are still a relative deal for many international buyers.
A typical property costs $28,570 per square meter in Hong Kong, $26,262 in London and $10,947 in Toronto. Meanwhile, it is $8,250 per square meter in San Francisco and just $3,170 in Miami. "

 

Deserts like AZ aren't the only places to look for dry climates.

 

Altitude helps when looking for dry.

 

We've been in the 100° region for the past week or so, peaked on Tuesday at 106° which was pretty obnoxious for any of us working outside.

 

But no humidity to speak of, which compared to FL and the like is a blessing.

 

Now come December we could easily dip into the teens and sub zero, but the snow is dry powder, so again not a lot of the wet sh*&^t.

 

We're at 3500ft, places like Denver at 5000ft more of the same.

 

High altitude climates can exhibit wild temperature swings but tend to be rather more manageable and drier.

Cold is easy, you just layer up. Hot well you take off as much as you can, and God Bless AC.

But a climate outside with hot/cold high humidity, that thats takes a toll

Edited July 21, 2022 by GinBoy2

[GinBoy2]

On 7/12/2022 at 6:32 AM, Jingthing said:

I'm happy for him that he can afford it but not everyone has the "skills" to cash in on Only Fans

 

Depends what you do.

 

After two of my rentals came up this year, they both rented to remote workers for $1150 & $1200.

 

They are Californian & New York remote worker transplants.

 

I'd bet my next pay check they are still getting CA & NY pay and are laughing all the way to the bank

[GinBoy2]

So after 23 pages what have we concluded?

 

1. Repatriation is still possible, you hold a US passport after all

2. Things are more expensive inflation in housing, food, energy is real, but read the EU forum and thats pretty much a universal issue right now

3. Probably the same folks who would have had problems 2, 3 years ago are the same folks today, just the repatriation option is even further away in the light at the end of the tunnel scenario.

 

Most of us are old enough to have lived through the gas crisis in the 1970's, inflation in the early 80's.

 

If the internet had existed back then pretty sure there would have been discussions not dissimilar to this

[ExpatOilWorker]

[mania]

Maybe repatriating expats could do like Elon Musk & grab one of these for 50k USD then just find a cheap lot to hook up ???? All you add is bed & couch/TV

Heck it is as big as a condo my wife & I lived happily in Chiang Mai for quite a few years

 

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by mania

[GypsyT]

A friend from LA has had condo in Laughlin, NV for 20+ years and he likes it. Very low fees and casinos have cheap meals (if you don't gamble). No state tax.

Hot & dry too. But nothing to see... just desert.

Looks like the cheapest place for me if I can stand boredom.

Any one been there for longer time than just to visit? I only have made weekend visits whish is OK.

One sample; https://tinyurl.com/ye29cw9t

 

[GinBoy2]

1 hour ago, GypsyT said:

A friend from LA has had condo in Laughlin, NV for 20+ years and he likes it. Very low fees and casinos have cheap meals (if you don't gamble). No state tax.

Hot & dry too. But nothing to see... just desert.

Looks like the cheapest place for me if I can stand boredom.

Any one been there for longer time than just to visit? I only have made weekend visits whish is OK.

One sample; https://tinyurl.com/ye29cw9t

 

I've been to Laughlin when I lived in San Diego.

 

It's extremely tiny, it basically exists for the casinos.

 

No commercial airlines, no Amtrak, I think there are buses to Vegas but thats about it.

 

It's cheap for a reason I think. 

 

Vegas is desert, but you wouldn't be bored. Laughlin on the other hand......

 

I'm still gonna harp on altitude. You'll get dry, hot in the summer cold in the winter, but much cheaper than the coasts and not some crime ridden inner city

Edited July 29, 2022 by GinBoy2

[BritManToo]

On 7/28/2022 at 9:46 AM, mania said:

Maybe repatriating expats could do like Elon Musk & grab one of these for 50k USD then just find a cheap lot to hook up ???? All you add is bed & couch/TV

Heck it is as big as a condo my wife & I lived happily in Chiang Mai for quite a few years

 

I don't consider $50k as cheap or even affordable.

My 3 bedroom house in CM cost $54k including the land.

[heybruce]

18 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I don't consider $50k as cheap or even affordable.

My 3 bedroom house in CM cost $54k including the land.

Isn't the house in your wife's name?

 

Not everyone is interested in a house and wife package deal.

[GinBoy2]

22 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I don't consider $50k as cheap or even affordable.

My 3 bedroom house in CM cost $54k including the land.

$54K, thats ฿1.7M, even for Thailand that must be quite the 'palace'!

[ExpatOilWorker]

Edited July 30, 2022 by ExpatOilWorker
Price in the '80.

[Iamfalang]

The big problem is nobody here had the hindsight.   In the 80's, it was sooo obvious to buy land.  Why didn't you buy?  In the late 90's, super obvious.  Why didn't you buy?  

 

You had both the time and could likely find the money..................yet, didn't.

 

Did you listen to the billion of online experts that said this could never happen, housing prices to zero, Fed collapses, and all the gloom and doom!!! Now you are the gloom and doom!!! hahahahahha

 

Without real estate, I wouldn't be doomed but there would be a lot more hoping and praying and watching the markets all the time.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

$54K, thats ฿1.7M, even for Thailand that must be quite the 'palace'!

Much the same as my $600k house in the UK was.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Iamfalang said:

The big problem is nobody here had the hindsight.   In the 80's, it was sooo obvious to buy land.  Why didn't you buy?  In the late 90's, super obvious.  Why didn't you buy?  

 

You had both the time and could likely find the money..................yet, didn't.

 

Did you listen to the billion of online experts that said this could never happen, housing prices to zero, Fed collapses, and all the gloom and doom!!! Now you are the gloom and doom!!! hahahahahha

 

Without real estate, I wouldn't be doomed but there would be a lot more hoping and praying and watching the markets all the time.

Are you aware of what interest rates were in the '80's?  First time buyer's without a lot of cash or unable to afford high interest loans were shut out of the market.  https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/

 

Also, the home appreciation that is supposed to work so well for everyone actually wasn't that great for most people.  In terms adjusted for inflation the average value of homes in the US have less than doubled in 30 years.  https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

 

You would have more than tripled your inflation adjusted return by investing in an S&P 500 index fund.

 

People rarely talk about how much money they lost in housing, but many people bought houses in areas where appreciation barely kept up with inflation, if that.  They then had to pay a high tax on the "profit" from the sale because in non-inflation adjusted terms the sales price had greatly increased. 

 

Only the people who were lucky enough to buy in the right place at the right time are talking about how housing is easy money.  It isn't.  Don't let any real estate sales person convince you it is.

[newnative]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Are you aware of what interest rates were in the '80's?  First time buyer's without a lot of cash or unable to afford high interest loans were shut out of the market.  https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/

 

Also, the home appreciation that is supposed to work so well for everyone actually wasn't that great for most people.  In terms adjusted for inflation the average value of homes in the US have less than doubled in 30 years.  https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

 

You would have more than tripled your inflation adjusted return by investing in an S&P 500 index fund.

 

People rarely talk about how much money they lost in housing, but many people bought houses in areas where appreciation barely kept up with inflation, if that.  They then had to pay a high tax on the "profit" from the sale because in non-inflation adjusted terms the sales price had greatly increased. 

 

Only the people who were lucky enough to buy in the right place at the right time are talking about how housing is easy money.  It isn't.  Don't let any real estate sales person convince you it is.

        I disagree with your assessment, which seems a bit simplistic and fails to consider any of the many factors that go into most people's investment decisions.   Perhaps some houses may have 'only' doubled in value over 30 years but there's more to home ownership than just that.  I doubt there are very many people who regret buying property in the West.  One of my older sisters bought her house--which she still owns--in the high interest 1980's you mention.   The interest rates were, indeed, sky high but she wanted to be a homeowner and wanted a particular historic house that came on the market at that time.  No regrets for her.  Lots of factors go into financial decisions.

       Here's another example.  My father retired from the US Dept. of Defense at the age of 58 in 1972.  Having lived all over the World with his job, the family returned to Chambersburg, PA, where he and my Mom had grown up.  

       He and Mom bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood for $45,000, with a 20-year mortgage.  In 1992, the mortgage was paid off.  He and Mom continued to live in the house another 17 years, mortgage-free, with just utilities and low taxes to pay.  The thing about rent is it's forever; a mortgage isn't.  

      With the money he was saving not having a mortgage or rent to pay--and all the kids finally out of college, Dad started investing in stocks more seriously--he always had but now he had more money.  He always felt guilty about moving us six kids around so much when we were growing up and he hoped to leave each of us $100,000 after he and Mom passed away.   When he died in 2009 his stock portfolio actually was about $600,000.   But, Mom was still alive so nothing was sold and the stock dividends helped pay for her nursing home care.  (She had Alzheimer's. )

     We sold their home for $150,000 and the proceeds also helped offset the nursing care expenses.   Even in a fairly out-of-the-way place like Chambersburg, the house did increase in value.   Had they rented those 37 retirement years it would have been a lot of money out the window and no $150,000 at the end of the road.

      My Mom passed away in 2019, age 101.  From 2009 to 2019 we kept almost all of Dad's original stock portfolio, mostly blue chip dividend stocks Dad had bought to assist with Mom's expenses, figuring, correctly, that he would likely go first.  We were fortunate to have this income, and Mom still got half of Dad's retirement.  With those funds, and with the house money, we had enough to pay for Mom's care.  The stock portfolio more than tripled in value, perhaps a good example of 'buy and hold'.

      In my case, I worked at a low-paying state job in expensive northern Virginia for 30 years.  Loved my job but never made more than $35,000 a year.  For 5 years I also worked a part-time job, as well, to make ends meet.  Hated living pay check to pay check praying something major and/or expensive didn't break. 

      The smartest thing I ever did was ask my Dad for a loan to help me make the down payment on a small condo to buy.  With the tax benefits, buying would cost about as much each month as what I was paying in rent.  I would be paying myself, not a landlord.  

     The first condo got me in the door but it wasn't my dream place.  Fixed it up and sold it at a profit, which began a semi-second career.   A half-dozen condos later and I finally had some money in the bank--and the condo I wanted on a lake.   

      One thing I always find amusing is posters often say, if you had done THIS rather than THAT, your return would have been much better.  More often than not it's a comparison of buying property rather than investing the money in something else.  It's almost always couched as do one or the other.  In reality, one can do both.  We're allowed to walk and chew gum at the same time.   

     However, there is also the other reality of not having a big chunk of money to invest either way.  'If only you had taken that money you spent on property . . . '  Uhh, what money?  In my case, I had $10,000 for a down payment on a condo.  Not a lot to invest in the stock market--and I still needed to budget money to keep a roof over my head.  So, not much for stocks but enough to get me a property I could fix up--while keeping that roof over my head at the same time.  Live in it for awhile, then sell at a profit, while saving on rent and benefitting from tax deductions.  Which eventually led to having enough money to both buy the next property and invest in some stocks.

    

      

 

 

[heybruce]

15 hours ago, newnative said:

        I disagree with your assessment, which seems a bit simplistic and fails to consider any of the many factors that go into most people's investment decisions.   Perhaps some houses may have 'only' doubled in value over 30 years but there's more to home ownership than just that.  I doubt there are very many people who regret buying property in the West.  One of my older sisters bought her house--which she still owns--in the high interest 1980's you mention.   The interest rates were, indeed, sky high but she wanted to be a homeowner and wanted a particular historic house that came on the market at that time.  No regrets for her.  Lots of factors go into financial decisions.

       Here's another example.  My father retired from the US Dept. of Defense at the age of 58 in 1972.  Having lived all over the World with his job, the family returned to Chambersburg, PA, where he and my Mom had grown up.  

       He and Mom bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood for $45,000, with a 20-year mortgage.  In 1992, the mortgage was paid off.  He and Mom continued to live in the house another 17 years, mortgage-free, with just utilities and low taxes to pay.  The thing about rent is it's forever; a mortgage isn't.  

      With the money he was saving not having a mortgage or rent to pay--and all the kids finally out of college, Dad started investing in stocks more seriously--he always had but now he had more money.  He always felt guilty about moving us six kids around so much when we were growing up and he hoped to leave each of us $100,000 after he and Mom passed away.   When he died in 2009 his stock portfolio actually was about $600,000.   But, Mom was still alive so nothing was sold and the stock dividends helped pay for her nursing home care.  (She had Alzheimer's. )

     We sold their home for $150,000 and the proceeds also helped offset the nursing care expenses.   Even in a fairly out-of-the-way place like Chambersburg, the house did increase in value.   Had they rented those 37 retirement years it would have been a lot of money out the window and no $150,000 at the end of the road.

      My Mom passed away in 2019, age 101.  From 2009 to 2019 we kept almost all of Dad's original stock portfolio, mostly blue chip dividend stocks Dad had bought to assist with Mom's expenses, figuring, correctly, that he would likely go first.  We were fortunate to have this income, and Mom still got half of Dad's retirement.  With those funds, and with the house money, we had enough to pay for Mom's care.  The stock portfolio more than tripled in value, perhaps a good example of 'buy and hold'.

      In my case, I worked at a low-paying state job in expensive northern Virginia for 30 years.  Loved my job but never made more than $35,000 a year.  For 5 years I also worked a part-time job, as well, to make ends meet.  Hated living pay check to pay check praying something major and/or expensive didn't break. 

      The smartest thing I ever did was ask my Dad for a loan to help me make the down payment on a small condo to buy.  With the tax benefits, buying would cost about as much each month as what I was paying in rent.  I would be paying myself, not a landlord.  

     The first condo got me in the door but it wasn't my dream place.  Fixed it up and sold it at a profit, which began a semi-second career.   A half-dozen condos later and I finally had some money in the bank--and the condo I wanted on a lake.   

      One thing I always find amusing is posters often say, if you had done THIS rather than THAT, your return would have been much better.  More often than not it's a comparison of buying property rather than investing the money in something else.  It's almost always couched as do one or the other.  In reality, one can do both.  We're allowed to walk and chew gum at the same time.   

     However, there is also the other reality of not having a big chunk of money to invest either way.  'If only you had taken that money you spent on property . . . '  Uhh, what money?  In my case, I had $10,000 for a down payment on a condo.  Not a lot to invest in the stock market--and I still needed to budget money to keep a roof over my head.  So, not much for stocks but enough to get me a property I could fix up--while keeping that roof over my head at the same time.  Live in it for awhile, then sell at a profit, while saving on rent and benefitting from tax deductions.  Which eventually led to having enough money to both buy the next property and invest in some stocks.

   

My assessment is simplistic?  I referenced credible sources about the history of home interest rates and true home appreciation in inflation adjusted terms, and you give us family stories.  Who is being simplistic?

 

The second sentence I posted was "First time buyer's without a lot of cash or unable to afford high interest loans were shut out of the market."  and you reply with a story about how you borrowed money from your father for the down payment on your first condo.  Apparently you don't realize that put you in the privileged class that had access to cash.  What about the buyers who don't have family members who have cash to spare?

 

[newnative]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

My assessment is simplistic?  I referenced credible sources about the history of home interest rates and true home appreciation in inflation adjusted terms, and you give us family stories.  Who is being simplistic?

 

The second sentence I posted was "First time buyer's without a lot of cash or unable to afford high interest loans were shut out of the market."  and you reply with a story about how you borrowed money from your father for the down payment on your first condo.  Apparently you don't realize that put you in the privileged class that had access to cash.  What about the buyers who don't have family members who have cash to spare?

 

     I thought your post was a bit simplistic because it only referenced a few statistics.  People's financial decisions are not explained in a few statistics.   Renting vs. home ownership is also a lot more than a few statistics.  I could cite a statistic that home ownership is still the American Dream of 74% of Americans, despite other investments perhaps offering a better return.  The personal stories I referenced were used to illustrate that more than just statistics enter into the equation.  I'm sure many other home owners have their own stories. 

     I don't think, by the way, that borrowing money from a relative automatically puts one in the 'privileged class'.  The lender may or may not be in that class but if someone needs to borrow money, he probably isn't.  And, lending and borrowing $10,000 is not exactly high finance either, come to think of it.  

      What I find most curious in your first post, and this one, is you make a special point of mentioning the high interest rates of the 1980s and how this prevented some people from buying a home.  But, your first post was all about how buying a home is a bad investment.  So, if we follow your logic, those people shut out in the 1980's were actually done a huge favor because they were prevented from buying a property which would 'only' likely double in price in 30 years.  Or, might have not even doubled. Or, might have lost money.  And, those taxes.  Phew!  Lucky them!   Dodged a bullet!   I imagine they all invested in that S&P index fund you mentioned and tripled their money, instead.  Happy ending.

      But, suppose, like me, you aren't of the privileged class.  How do you invest in that S&P index fund if you don't have a big chunk of money to invest in the first place?   Yes, you could send a little money each month--if you had a little money left each month after paying all the monthly expenses, including the rent, which in my case went up at least 5% every year, while my paycheck didn't.  Most months I was just breaking even, with no savings.  Little or nothing left to send to the index fund.

      So, we're back to the question of how do you create a little wealth for yourself if you're not of the privileged class, while still having the big monthly expense of keeping a roof over your head.   For me, a huge part of my monthly take home pay in expensive northern Virginia was going to rent, which, as I said, increased each year. 

     That chunk of monthly rent money was the biggest amount, and really the only amount, for me to work with in terms of any investment.  But, always looming, I still had to keep a roof over my head and not be homeless.  So, I chose to invest in me, rather than the landlord.   Something I could invest my rent money in that might only double in 30 years was better for me than a zero investment in something that would triple in value.  

       

     

[BritManToo]

18 hours ago, newnative said:

I disagree with your assessment, which seems a bit simplistic and fails to consider any of the many factors that go into most people's investment decisions.   Perhaps some houses may have 'only' doubled in value over 30 years but there's more to home ownership than just that.  I doubt there are very many people who regret buying property in the West.  One of my older sisters bought her house--which she still owns--in the high interest 1980's you mention.   The interest rates were, indeed, sky high but she wanted to be a homeowner and wanted a particular historic house that came on the market at that time.  No regrets for her.  Lots of factors go into financial decisions.

       Here's another example.  My father retired from the US Dept. of Defense at the age of 58 in 1972.  Having lived all over the World with his job, the family returned to Chambersburg, PA, where he and my Mom had grown up.  

       He and Mom bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood for $45,000, with a 20-year mortgage.  In 1992, the mortgage was paid off.  He and Mom continued to live in the house another 17 years, mortgage-free, with just utilities and low taxes to pay.  The thing about rent is it's forever; a mortgage isn't.  

Now tell us a story about all the married guys who paid for a house and lost it to their wife in a divorce! 50% of marriages end in divorce, mostly the women keep the house.

 

Any investment with a 50% chance of a total loss ain't that great IMHO.

Obviously not a consideration if you're 'true forced lonely' or a homosexual.

Edited August 1, 2022 by BritManToo