The Siren's Call of Homeownership in America

Minarchist wrote:
Enix wrote:

That said, modern houses are ridiculous. Who needs a 20-by-15 master bedroom? Sure, I spend about 7 hours a day in my bedroom, but I'm asleep for approximately 6 hours and 55 minutes of that time.

Sure, but who needs more than a 10x10 hovel for a family of four? After all, that's still how much of the world lives. This is the same kind of attitude of thinking "everyone who drives faster than me is crazy and everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot." People are different. They want different things. Why begrudge it?

What Min's trying to say is don't begrudge him his 20x15 master bedroom. He needs all that extra space for the spectators.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

What Min's trying to say is don't begrudge him his 20x15 master bedroom. He needs all that extra space for the spectators.

I'm going to assume that 14x9 of that space is the walk-in-closet.

DSGamer wrote:

This is really pernicious, honestly. The looking down your nose at people for their home purchases. All of this stuff is so personal.

I agree, and I hope I haven't given the indication that I judge anyone else upon their choice to purchase a home or not, or if they do how much they spend on it or anything.

Do Fixer Uppers even exist anymore? I know when I was looking for a house they pretty much didn't. Everything that was in that range was bought up by developers and they either quickly polished the turd or tore it down and rebuilt.

On top of that, the down payments on fixer uppers are still large, it really doesn't change the majority of the problems people have with buying.

I very frequently regret buying a house. I'm hoping in a few more years I'll have weathered the storm but right now the financial and time burden are more than I am happy with.

Jonman wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

What Min's trying to say is don't begrudge him his 20x15 master bedroom. He needs all that extra space for the spectators.

I'm going to assume that 14x9 of that space is the walk-in-closet.

It's not really a walk-in closet, it's just a space to conceal a trapdoor down to the salt mines. A tyrant's work is never done.

In case you're curious, the hidden entrance to the orphan-staffed monocle-polishing factory is in the coat closet.

Jonman wrote:
Duoae wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Enhanced Steam tells me I've payed nearly $2k to Steam alone, and I'm going to assume there's another few hundred bucks in there from Steam keys purchased elsewhere. Boom - there's a significant portion of my downpayment.

That's a bit misleading though. When did you sign up to Steam? 2004 like most of us? Are you saying that you would have done nothing that cost money in all that time and years that you were playing games in order to save that money?

I seriously doubt it.

You should doubt your assertion. Because it's wrong.

My first Steam purchase was at the start of 2013 (when I traded in my filth-encrusted console-jockey onesie for the pristine white tunic of the PC master race). Now Steam has three-hundred-and-something games in it with my name on them.

What I'm saying is that were I looking to squirrel away some cash towards a downpayment for a house, I could have looked to my copious gaming habit as a source of those funds. I suspect that I'm not alone in this community, which is kind of the point. This community is largely made up of people who funnel too much of their disposable income into their hobby, to varying degrees.

My point was that home-ownership isn't as far out of reach as it may seem if you're willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Do Fixer Uppers even exist anymore? I know when I was looking for a house they pretty much didn't. Everything that was in that range was bought up by developers and they either quickly polished the turd or tore it down and rebuilt.

They do exist, because I own one, and am 99% failing at fixing it up.

To be fair, the house was built in 1949, and the same woman lived there until her demise nearly 50 years later, whereupon we bought it. I realize that's a pretty rare situation, but there you go.

On a side-note, it's fairly hilarious how easy to spot in which decade she last remodeled each room. My bathroom has silver paisley wallpaper on the walls. And the ceiling. The ceiling. My assumption is that it was last decorated in the early 70s, when she was doing a lot of acid. That's some good trippin' wallpaper, is all I'm saying.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jonman wrote:

My point was that home-ownership isn't as far out of reach as it may seem if you're willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

I hate you for confirming my point via Sex and the City. Not as much as I hate myself, but there you go.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Do Fixer Uppers even exist anymore?

Jonman wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do Fixer Uppers even exist anymore? I know when I was looking for a house they pretty much didn't. Everything that was in that range was bought up by developers and they either quickly polished the turd or tore it down and rebuilt.

They do exist, because I own one, and am 99% failing at fixing it up.

To be fair, the house was built in 1949, and the same woman lived there until her demise nearly 50 years later, whereupon we bought it. I realize that's a pretty rare situation, but there you go.

On a side-note, it's fairly hilarious how easy to spot in which decade she last remodeled each room. My bathroom has silver paisley wallpaper on the walls. And the ceiling. The ceiling. My assumption is that it was last decorated in the early 70s, when she was doing a lot of acid. That's some good trippin' wallpaper, is all I'm saying.

Yup, that's the exact kind of house that was getting snapped up by developers. We almost bid on one before we found our current house. A developer ended up buying it, gutted it, rebuilt in like 6 months, and sold it for 3x what they paid.

Tanglebones wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do Fixer Uppers even exist anymore?

And stuck in my head all day now, thanks!

Yonder wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
My neighbors ended up putting a full-sized refrigerator on the deck of their new tiny house because the under-counter dorm fridge didn't work for a family of four.

See, whereas I would think a family of four would be a bad idea for a tiny house. I'm talking for while I'm solo. :)

Something a little like this I assume?
IMAGE(http://offbeattenn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Chris-Lee-Full-Scale-Falcon-Cockpit-1.jpg)

Sad part would be not having enough room for my art, not a lot of wall space. Nor a lot of room for a corgi.

Farscry wrote:

This is in comparison to just about everyone else I know who's middle class and looks down their nose at any home under $150k. Several of the people either of us knows through work have bought more expensive homes than we're looking at on less household income than we make (one of my coworkers bought a $240k-ish house last year on a combined household income of around $100k - that's terrifying to me). I like to think that I'm setting us up for success by being modest in our expectations.

Well hell, now you're making me nervous. Houses around here are about $250-275k for about what you described, and that's what we've been looking at. We make more than $100k combined, but my salary alone isn't there.

Room for a Wookie, but no corgi?

Yonder wrote:

Room for a Wookie, but no corgi?

The wookie probably sheds less.

Chaz wrote:
Farscry wrote:

This is in comparison to just about everyone else I know who's middle class and looks down their nose at any home under $150k. Several of the people either of us knows through work have bought more expensive homes than we're looking at on less household income than we make (one of my coworkers bought a $240k-ish house last year on a combined household income of around $100k - that's terrifying to me). I like to think that I'm setting us up for success by being modest in our expectations.

Well hell, now you're making me nervous. Houses around here are about $250-275k for about what you described, and that's what we've been looking at. We make more than $100k combined, but my salary alone isn't there.

It depends where you live. Incomes aren't substantially higher in CA and yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a one bedroom apartment in a safe neighborhood for$250K around here. People tend to deal with all-interest loans and such, just to get a foot in the door. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good idea, but...

Jonman wrote:

To be fair, the house was built in 1949, and the same woman lived there until her demise nearly 50 years later, whereupon we bought it. I realize that's a pretty rare situation, but there you go.

Seems to be really common in some of the neighborhoods around here. Several houses have had many owners, but a lot haven't — at least, many of our neighbors have been here since the '70s. Our old house was single-owner from '62 until the '90s at which point it went through a rapid series. Our current house we bought from the original owners, who lived there from '73 until they moved out roughly 2 years before we bought it in 2011. And yeah man, some of these wallpaper choices...

In our unexpected remodel of the kitchen we have discovered three wallpapers layered on top of each other. All fruit.

EDIT: This does also mean that it's extremely common right now to see big construction dumpsters in front of houses, because this neighborhood is right at that point where many of its tenants have recently moved to retirement homes or died, and younger families are moving in, seeing the shag carpet and tongue-and-groove wood paneling on the walls, and saying "this has to go!" Kinda fun to see what people do with the places, at least.

Minarchist wrote:
Enix wrote:

That said, modern houses are ridiculous. Who needs a 20-by-15 master bedroom? Sure, I spend about 7 hours a day in my bedroom, but I'm asleep for approximately 6 hours and 55 minutes of that time.

Sure, but who needs more than a 10x10 hovel for a family of four? After all, that's still how much of the world lives. This is the same kind of attitude of thinking "everyone who drives faster than me is crazy and everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot." People are different. They want different things. Why begrudge it?

Fair point.

The fact that this thread grows by 20+ posts every time I click on it shows how emotional this all is.

Rational Me says I'm insane to own a house. The dogwood tree finally killed my main sewer line a year ago. Memorial Day weekend, my central AC/heat pump died in a cloud of condenser vapor. My house has cleaned out my savings several times over, and I've got a couple of big bills (roof and furnace) coming up sooner than later.

But Emotional Me loves my old broken down house an insane amount. With luck I'll stay here until I'm as old and broken down as it is.

The tiny house concept is doable, but I think it depends on an honest look at how much of your current domicile you actually, currently need. For my part, I require a stove top and a convection oven, a toilet and bath, bed, computer area, and rather large storage space for all my crap. It won't fit into a 10x10 hovel with everyone else, but my own space requirements might fit into a 400 sq. ft. area easily, with room for entertaining a couple of guests. Large yard, I suppose.

Mostly, I like small houses because I hate cleaning and I hate maintenance.

If you're not used to living out of a bunk bed, you may quite easily actually need 800 or more sq. ft just for your own stuff.

(one of my coworkers bought a $240k-ish house last year on a combined household income of around $100k - that's terrifying to me)

One thing about the new Everyone Rent mentality is that more people renting usually means rent (for houses) has gone up the last few years.

Today, paying a mortgage on that 240k house would not be much more then what I'm paying for rent so why not buy?

Also, I forgot to mention I get a VA loan (which means you don't need a down payment) or it would be much tougher for me to buy.

Farscry wrote:

Interestingly, I've had the opposite experience of you, DSG.

I was seriously considering buying a modest home in my mid-20's for around $75k (in my area at the time, that would get you a 2-bedroom home in the older part of town, which is still reasonably safe and decent).

Instead, I've rented for my entire adult life. Now here I am, 37, with sh*t-all to show for my ~16 years of rental payments. My quick math puts that at just shy of $130k with no equity in anything.

If I'd bought that house, it would've been paid off well before now, so I'd be paying property taxes and insurance totalling roughly $5k/year in my area (I'm highballing that estimate). Add on around $25k in repairs/upkeep I probably would've had to spend by now, and I'd instead be in the hole at around $114k with (given the increase in home/land values since then) around $85k in equity.

That's a HUGE difference in financial standing.

I find your comments intriguing because I know we live in the same area and therefore many of the costs are similar.

As someone who bought a house in 2008 which I am trying to sell now I would say owning a home sucks. We are actually going to have to list it for what we paid - which means the same "no equity in anything" except we put on a new roof, deck, and other upkeep/improvements! So actually we are at negative equity! Yippiee.

For Cedar Rapids Iowa that seems to be because after the 2008 flood many, many low income homes were destroyed so those people have been moving outward into areas that previously didn't have a lot of low income folks.

However that can happen anywhere as far as I can tell. We have relatives that go to Punta Gorda Florida every winter and there are huge developments of hundreds of homes empty because the bubble burst. So the folks who bought early in those areas are screwed.

Now I guess a strong optimist would say the recession was the worst the country has seen in 70+ years so that shouldn't be what people base decisions on but on the other hand my 401K which just kind of rides along is much higher than it was a few years ago - so I would have been much better off putting extra into that and renting.

I guess in the end the problem is we can't guess the future. Perhaps Rockwell/Collins would have gotten a great new contract, or Google would have opened a data center in Cedar Rapids but that didn't happen and now I am sitting on a great house worth less than I paid.

So for me I guess home ownership should be about liking home ownership - enjoying mowing, painting, fixing the faucet, etc. rather than hoping it will be a good investment.

Jonman wrote:
Duoae wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Enhanced Steam tells me I've payed nearly $2k to Steam alone, and I'm going to assume there's another few hundred bucks in there from Steam keys purchased elsewhere. Boom - there's a significant portion of my downpayment.

That's a bit misleading though. When did you sign up to Steam? 2004 like most of us? Are you saying that you would have done nothing that cost money in all that time and years that you were playing games in order to save that money?

I seriously doubt it.

You should doubt your assertion. Because it's wrong.

My first Steam purchase was at the start of 2013 (when I traded in my filth-encrusted console-jockey onesie for the pristine white tunic of the PC master race). Now Steam has three-hundred-and-something games in it with my name on them.

What I'm saying is that were I looking to squirrel away some cash towards a downpayment for a house, I could have looked to my copious gaming habit as a source of those funds. I suspect that I'm not alone in this community, which is kind of the point. This community is largely made up of people who funnel too much of their disposable income into their hobby, to varying degrees.

My point was that home-ownership isn't as far out of reach as it may seem if you're willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

This thread is moving very quickly so sorry for the late(ish) replies. Wow. 2000 in two years on steam? Okay, I think you spend quite a bit more than me on that front. It's closer to about 500 for me there (havwn't calculated exactly). Otherwise, I think overall (including consoles) we're about equal.

However I don't really see you contradicting my other point: what would you fill all those hours with and would it be free? I can see tgat someone who is very determined to have a home could cut down their costs easily but then they wouldn't have much of a life. At least not in my opinion. For instance you could really save money by not eating anything but bran and cheap fruit (maybe the occasional protein shake) but I'd also like to live my life as well.

I still feel like buying a house strictly as an investment is a huge mistake, and that's the primary change from baby boomers to millenials. It could still be worth more later than it is now, but then so could coins and comic books.

Buying a house because you like owning a house -- the yard, the freedom, the privacy -- can still be worth it over the drawbacks.

Regarding tiny houses: I find them extremely fascinating, and while I would have little issue decluttering my *stuff* to fit 300 sq ft, I have three dogs and two aquariums worth of animals I would not be able to accomodate. The 27 year old turtle, specifically, would be difficult to manage.

Seth wrote:

I still feel like buying a house strictly as an investment is a huge mistake...

Oh, absolutely. Rental properties can be good investments, but buying a primary residence as an "investment" has no historical basis. About the best thing that can be said about it is that it's an inflation hedge. But then, so are CDs and (to a lesser extent) bonds, and a house is much more difficult to divest yourself of.

Here's housing prices relative to inflation since 1900. It's basically flat. The 1920 dip is a combo of the fallout from WW1 and the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic, which ensured that inventory far outstripped demand due to a whole bunch of people dying. We all know what the 2000-era spike is, but as you can see we've just about returned to the mean.

IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kjOHoEKbH7A/ULQgiAZ45RI/AAAAAAAABh4/8U-RJx1-pGg/s1600/Inflation-Adjusted+U.S.+Home+Prices+Since+1900.jpg)

I'm looking at buying a home now, but conditions here are probably pretty different to the U.S. so I don't have much to say, I just have a question though.

A lot of people are talking about renting either a house or apartment or buying a house, but what about buying an apartment? That's a pretty standard starter home option here.

As contrast to what seems like US conditions, while property prices spiked hugely across most of the country rents have gotten ludicrous. I can buy a 2 bedroom apartment and pay levies for the same as the rent in the one bedroom I'm in at the moment. And rental agreements mean that rent goes up a guaranteed 10% every year.

Are you referring to condos? I like the appeal, but HOA fees make me bristle.

Minarchist wrote:
Seth wrote:

I still feel like buying a house strictly as an investment is a huge mistake...

Oh, absolutely. Rental properties can be good investments, but buying a primary residence as an "investment" has no historical basis.

Aren't you missing the point about it being an investment though? It's not necessarily about the growth in value so much as it is being left with a valuable asset after 30 years of rent payments to the bank.

In that light, primary residences have very much been about investment, historically.

Seth wrote:

Are you referring to condos? I like the appeal, but HOA fees make me bristle.

I don't know, I've never been able to figure out what a condo is. Seems like it may be the same thing. Here it's called Sectional Title.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I'm looking at buying a home now, but conditions here are probably pretty different to the U.S. so I don't have much to say, I just have a question though.

A lot of people are talking about renting either a house or apartment or buying a house, but what about buying an apartment? That's a pretty standard starter home option here.

As contrast to what seems like US conditions, while property prices spiked hugely across most of the country rents have gotten ludicrous. I can buy a 2 bedroom apartment and pay levies for the same as the rent in the one bedroom I'm in at the moment. And rental agreements mean that rent goes up a guaranteed 10% every year.

For some reason that's not a big thing in the US. I'm sure there are tax, legal, and historical reasons for that, but I'm not sure what they are.

Buying "condos" like Seth mentioned, is a thing in the US, but those are pretty strictly limited to 2-3 story complexes in my experience. The only place I know of where purchasing an apartment slot in a larger building is a thing in the US is New York City, but maybe other large metropolitan areas have that and I just don't know it.

Jonman wrote:
Minarchist wrote:
Seth wrote:

I still feel like buying a house strictly as an investment is a huge mistake...

Oh, absolutely. Rental properties can be good investments, but buying a primary residence as an "investment" has no historical basis.

Aren't you missing the point about it being an investment though? It's not necessarily about the growth in value so much as it is being left with a valuable asset after 30 years of rent payments to the bank.

In that light, primary residences have very much been about investment, historically.

That math often doesn't work out, though. Unless you have very specific rental needs (detached house, large yard, etc.), it's typically quite easy to rent a comparable property in an apartment-style setting for a fair amount less than you pay for a mortgage + property taxes + insurance + repairs. If you bank or invest that extra money, you generally come out ahead over using the house itself as an investment.

Of course, that assumes you're a disciplined investor, which we've alluded to some earlier. But in general there's no "big win" financially in home purchasing that people think there is — especially when you remember you'll probably get dinged for almost 10% of the final value of the home should you actually try to access that money.