# Financial disacuity **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 22, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949 "2014-12-22T20:10:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/281 "2014-12-30T15:07:27Z")
Jesus Christ. Most people don’t want to live in a hovel with rats and go to bed by the sound of gunfire each night. Most normal people anyway. I remember having this kind of conversation with my idiot parents in 1982. They had a choice: a house in Massepequa for $100k or a fucking ugly assed apartment in Coney Island. The morons went for the apartment in Brooklyn. That kind of house would probably go for $600k right now. Even at twelve I knew the house was a better idea. Don’t buy a house if you don’t want to. You still have to live somewhere. Implying that people who do so are idiots is ridiculous. For the money we pay we get a safe neighborhood, two and a half full baths, room for two kids and two cats, a garden out back, great schools and easy access to shops, libraries, public parks and Newark airport. We’d still have to pay for at least a two bedroom somewhere and that wouldn’t be cheap either. I’ve had similar conversations with people who prefer to hoard toilet paper from Wal Mart rather than invest in the market because it’s too risky. FYI, our dividend income alone this year was nearly $18k. Make whatever choices you like. But some choices are better than others. ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/282 "2014-12-30T15:24:18Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > Strictly speaking, the 4% rule is not 4% of your portfolio each year. > > Instead, you take 4% the first year then do a COLA adjustment that dollar amount in subsequent years. Depending on how the market performs you might take more or less than 4% in any given year. One thing I’ve wondered about with this. The idea is that you never reduce the nest egg, right? I mean, if you have $500,000 on the day you first tap it, the plan is to still have $500,000 years and years later? But the fact is, we all die. And our doctors can give us a reasonable guess at how long we can expect to live based on our parents, what diseases we have, our way of life. If anything, we’ll likely die much sooner than expected (accident, unexpected illness) rather than living much beyond our due date. And some of us don’t have children and thus don’t care about leaving money behind. So is there some formula to figure out how much you can take out each year to just exhaust the heap? Say you are 65, and can reasonably expect to live to 85. Add, oh, five years for wiggle room. Why not figure out how much you can spend so your 25th withdrawal empties the pot? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/283 "2014-12-30T15:24:19Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Someone once said, “Poor people do things poorly.” I think there’s a lot of truth in that. At least for chronically poor people. > > A good portion of my childhood was spent being poor. And I’ve known countless people whom I would describe as chronically poor. They’re their own worst enemies. They make the same bad decisions over and over and over. And then they blame others for their “misery and misfortune.” I have also learned that these people can’t be helped. Except that the experiments I’ve cited up thread tend to demonstrate that poor people CAN be helped. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/284 "2014-12-30T15:37:09Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Wow. When I brought [this topic up](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=693352), there was a lot of “You hate poor people!” being thrown around. It’s good to see how civilized SD has become over the past 2 years. I think it’s the difference in thread titles; by titling your thread “Explain the “poor” mentality to me”, you pre-agitated the habitual defenders of all things impoverished by (in their eyes) implying that the mentality of poor people was unfathomably weird or stupid. In fact, a lot of it is just a lack of financial savvy, very few resources, and a culture that tends not to reward success, and doesn’t penalize failure (via the mechanism of mooching off friends and relatives when in a tight spot). These things tend to reinforce one another, which makes a person very stuck. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/285 "2014-12-30T15:41:09Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Don’t buy a house if you don’t want to. You still have to live somewhere. Implying that people who do so are idiots is ridiculous. Implying that people who buy houses are idiots merely because they buy houses is, yes, stupid. Implying that people who rent are idiots _because they rent_ is likewise stupid. Either choice can be good or bad depending on circumstances. Not all rentals are rat-filled hovels with a background muzak of gunfire. Not all homes are idyllic living situations. There’s a certain point where income becomes too low and too uncertain to make a 15-to-30 year commitment to a purchase sensible. We need decent, clean, safe, and _affordable_ rentals for people in such circumstances. That will also mean fewer square feet per person and some trade-offs otherwise, but vermin-free rental housing providing decent shelter should be achievable in this country. Above a certain income owning almost always makes sense (outside of people who, for whatever reason, relocate frequently). At some point this notion that poor people should manage their money like wealthy people took hold, but it’s a false one. When 90% of your income MUST go to absolute basics then you’re in a very different situation then when only 10% of your income is needed for the basics. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/286 "2014-12-30T15:43:51Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > This summer I came back from my travel vacation with lots of pictures and funny stories. My senior supervisor happened to see the pictures I took and was visibly impressed and full of curiosity. Maybe prior to our conversation, he thought I was a boring, crazy cat person. Perhaps hearing about my experiences has made him to see me in a different light…and now that light will shine the next time I’m up for promotion. Who knows? So you think the chances of you getting a promotion because your boss liked your vacation pictures is comparable to the chances that your house will increase in value. That’s not the stupidest thing I have read all week, but it is in the Top Ten. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/287 "2014-12-30T16:02:16Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > So is there some formula to figure out how much you can take out each year to just exhaust the heap? Say you are 65, and can reasonably expect to live to 85. Add, oh, five years for wiggle room. Why not figure out how much you can spend so your 25th withdrawal empties the pot? The problem is if the predictions are wrong. Sure, you die early you leave money but at least your needs are covered, but what if you live a LOT longer than anticipated? When, in the past, I’ve dealt with financial planners I’ve always had issues with their basic formulas. For starters, it presumes children. Always. Well, I don’t have kids. As you noted, someone in my position has less incentive to leave an inheritance for anyone. There does seem to be an expectation of planning to live 20 years past retirement, often expressed as you did as a 65-85 year span. Well, OK… but I come from a family where even the people with serious health issues tend to live to their late 70’s/early 80’s, and those without live into their late 90’s. Personally, I think it would totally suck to retire at 65 planning to live to 85, then reach 85 and have to go back to work because you’re out of money. I have a better than average chance of living into my 90’s based on family history. I had _better_ consider that. Which is why I NEVER planned to retire at 65, much less 55 or whatever earlier age people talk about. I _always_ planned to work until at least 70, longer if I could. And people continually looked at me like I had a second head when I said that. Do I _want_ to do that, as in, _desire_ to do that? Not really… but barring sudden acquisition of immense wealth (not likely) the numbers would just never work out for me to retire earlier. If I retire at 65 I’ll need to plan to have enough money to make 95… that’s 30 years of money to live on, not 20. Heck, I might even make it to 100, holy crap, that’s a lot of years. Maybe I should retire at 80? I dunno. I’ve known 80 year olds who are still working because they want to be doing something, who are mentally and physically able to work. Heck, I had a friend once who was still working full time at 100! Of course, it helped that she actually _liked_ her job. that makes it all so much easier, doesn’t it, when you like what you’re doing? That’s also why I’ve tried to avoid/train myself out of bad health habits. I’ll likely live a long time _regardless_ of whether I treat my body like crap or not, but if I have to live to 80 or 90 or 100 I’d prefer to be as healthy and able-bodied as possible. Part of that is not abusing your body in your 30’s and 40’s. Oh, and that whole needing to work thing - a hell of a lot easier if your body isn’t breaking down. Which is an additional craptastic thought on top of everything else I’m dealing with right now. Oh, shit, how am I going to fund my old age? Well, both SS and my pension give better rates if you hold off collecting until 70, so there’s that. I think I’ve got 20-25 more years working life left before my current planned retirement so there’s a possibility of rebuilding my savings destroyed by the Great Recession. It does frustrate me to see people half my age doing stupid, thoughtless shit that’s keeping them trapped in the cesspit of poverty. I was poor once before, I climbed out of it, I’m doing my best to climb up the mountain again but, you see, I _know_ what needs to be done to do that. And I see a lot of my current co-workers doing the exact opposite. I’ve got a fairly good notion of why they do some of the things they do which, I once again emphasize, are _explanations_, not _excuses_. A lot of them are never going to be any better off than they are now unless they make some radical changes. They’re going to be poor, they’ll be toothless, overweight, out of shape, and suffering diabetes/heart disease by their middle 40’s, and they’ll die in their 50’s and 60’s. But I must be a cock-eyed optimist or something because I still keep hoping things will change for the better. Or maybe I just celebrate the 1 in 10 (or whatever) who escape poverty rather than despair over those that don’t. That, and I don’t hold the locked-in poor in contempt, and I don’t seem to have the _anger_ against them that some other folks do. Why is that? Why do some people get so damn _furious_ about the existence of poor people? ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/288 "2014-12-30T16:02:20Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > One thing I’ve wondered about with this. The idea is that you never reduce the nest egg, right? I mean, if you have $500,000 on the day you first tap it, the plan is to still have $500,000 years and years later? No, it is expected that you are going to dip into the $500,000. The idea behind a safe withdrawal rate strategy is to maximize the probability you don’t run out of money before you die. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/289 "2014-12-30T16:28:08Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Jesus Christ. Most people don’t want to live in a hovel with rats and go to bed by the sound of gunfire each night. Most normal people anyway. I remember having this kind of conversation with my idiot parents in 1982. They had a choice: a house in Massepequa for $100k or a fucking ugly assed apartment in Coney Island. The morons went for the apartment in Brooklyn. That kind of house would probably go for $600k right now. Even at twelve I knew the house was a better idea. > > Don’t buy a house if you don’t want to. You still have to live somewhere. Implying that people who do so are idiots is ridiculous. For the money we pay we get a safe neighborhood, two and a half full baths, room for two kids and two cats, a garden out back, great schools and easy access to shops, libraries, public parks and Newark airport. We’d still have to pay for at least a two bedroom somewhere and that wouldn’t be cheap either. > > I’ve had similar conversations with people who prefer to hoard toilet paper from Wal Mart rather than invest in the market because it’s too risky. FYI, our dividend income alone this year was nearly $18k. > > Make whatever choices you like. But some choices are better than others. Who is calling anyone an idiot, **LavenderBlue**? I have scoured the thread and can’t find anyone doing that. Is there someone in your world telling you you’re an idiot (or a loser, or a fiscally unsound nobody) for buying a house? You know what’s idiotic? Likening all rental properties to crime-ridden, rat-infested hovels. If a person is renting a property that is in this bad of shape, they probably can’t afford to buy a house that’s in much better. A person who is renting a property where the public schools suck can’t afford to buy a house in an area where the schools are excellent. So “buy a house to improve your quality of life” isn’t good advice, at least not universally. The thread seems to be a bunch of middle class people bemoaning the inexplicable behavior of lower income people. But lower income people do not become middle class by buying houses, since the houses they can afford will likely not appreciate much in value and will likely sap them dry in terms of repairs, maintenance, and opportunity costs (like moving where there are better jobs). Not to mention, lower income people often have bad credit. Not because they are more irresponsible, but because they live riskier lives. It does not make sense for such person to saddle themselves with MORE debt and take on even more risk. If a person is well off enough to buy a house with appreciable value, they are likely already living just fine and don’t need any advice other than “please enjoy your life”. I haven’t disparaged anyone here for living a different lifestyle than the one I have chosen for myself. So I’m curious who you’re talking to and why you’re so goshdarn defensive. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/290 "2014-12-30T16:38:09Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So you think the chances of you getting a promotion because your boss liked your vacation pictures is comparable to the chances that your house will increase in value. That’s not the stupidest thing I have read all week, but it is in the Top Ten. > > Regards, > Shodan That you seem to think an object is more valuable than experiences is one of the _saddest_ things _ever_. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/291 "2014-12-30T17:12:59Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > That you seem to think an object is more valuable than experiences is one of the _saddest_ things _ever_. Neither polarity of that statement is 100% true. Some “objects” are worth more, in every sense, than some experiences. But people who buy only objects and forego experiences are losers in the long run. I can think of nothing sadder than sitting on your custom Euro furniture in your showplace home built out over your 4-car garage of luxury cars and sporting vehicles, looking out at the reflections of your custom pool… without a memory of doing anything other than a daily grind to get there. We’ve been on several cruises, including a very expensive one about five years ago. You can have most of the junk in my house before I’ll give up those experiences and memories. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/292 "2014-12-30T17:35:29Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Who is calling anyone an idiot, **LavenderBlue**? I have scoured the thread and can’t find anyone doing that. Is there someone in your world telling you you’re an idiot (or a loser, or a fiscally unsound nobody) for buying a house? > > You know what’s idiotic? Likening all rental properties to crime-ridden, rat-infested hovels. If a person is renting a property that is in this bad of shape, they probably can’t afford to buy a house that’s in much better. A person who is renting a property where the public schools suck can’t afford to buy a house in an area where the schools are excellent. So “buy a house to improve your quality of life” isn’t good advice, at least not universally. > > The thread seems to be a bunch of middle class people bemoaning the inexplicable behavior of lower income people. But lower income people do not become middle class by buying houses, since the houses they can afford will likely not appreciate much in value and will likely sap them dry in terms of repairs, maintenance, and opportunity costs (like moving where there are better jobs). Not to mention, lower income people often have bad credit. Not because they are more irresponsible, but because they live riskier lives. It does not make sense for such person to saddle themselves with MORE debt and take on even more risk. > > If a person is well off enough to buy a house with appreciable value, they are likely already living just fine and don’t need any advice other than “please enjoy your life”. > > I haven’t disparaged anyone here for living a different lifestyle than the one I have chosen for myself. So I’m curious who you’re talking to and why you’re so goshdarn defensive. I don’t think I’m one tenth as defensive as certain posters who are poor and are chiding other people for daring to suggest that many poor people are poor not because people are mean but because poor people tend to make lots of really stupid life choices. I swear we’ll need to give those people a medal declaring them Not One of Those Poor People and be done with it. Rent don’t rent. Buy don’t buy. No skin off my nose. But the implication that middle class people who choose to buy homes are stupid (a theme of this thread) is ridiculous. My house was a far better investment than my stupid bro’s decision to go on a cruise and refuse the money I offered to go halfsies on an apartment with him. He’s an idiot. I wouldn’t care if he were an idiot but a) he constantly insults me to other people and b) I am worried that when my dad dies he’s going to show up on my door asking me to support him because he’s a moron who made stupid life choices and that’s why he has no money. My stupid bro could have had an apartment worth $150k now with only about $500 a month in monthly costs including taxes and utilities. Instead he has nothing and it is all his fault. A lot of poor are because they make choices that are simply not good in life such as dropping out of high school, early childbearing and problems with both lack of savings and overspending. I have witnessed this experience firsthand with multiple family members and friends of friends. After a while, my sympathy meter just goes out the window. Oh and FYI, I wasn’t raised middle class. My dad’s a retired mailman with a GED. My late mom mocked me for daring to think myself smart and wanting to get an education. If I am middle class now, it is because, unlike my brother, I am not a moron. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/293 "2014-12-30T17:42:31Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Neither polarity of that statement is 100% true. Some “objects” are worth more, in every sense, than some experiences. But people who buy only objects and forego experiences are losers in the long run. > > I can think of nothing sadder than sitting on your custom Euro furniture in your showplace home built out over your 4-car garage of luxury cars and sporting vehicles, looking out at the reflections of your custom pool… without a memory of doing anything other than a daily grind to get there. Very true. It’s also true that in terms of making yourself a more marketable person (romantically, economically, etc.) experiences are the best way to do it. A person can own the biggest house on the block. But if she or he doesn’t have anything interesting to talk about or share with others, then they will lose out on opportunities, including financial ones. I’m not suggesting that someone should try to bank on Caribbean vacations. But I reject the idea that owning a house is the only object that provides dividends (plenty of women are making their boob jobs work for them), or that it is inherently superior to experiences in improving someone’s life. I have a coworker who owns two houses, but complains she can’t afford to travel to destinations she says she’d like to see (like the entire state of California). Maybe she will be able to do so once she reaps the financial windfall twenty, thirty years from now. But by then, she’ll likely be old and decrepit. So I don’t envy her, even though on paper she’s richer than I am. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/294 "2014-12-30T17:58:36Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > But the implication that middle class people who choose to buy homes are stupid (a theme of this thread) is ridiculous. My house was a far better investment than my stupid bro’s decision to go on a cruise and refuse the money I offered to go halfsies on an apartment with him. He’s an idiot. I wouldn’t care if he were an idiot but a) he constantly insults me to other people and b) I am worried that when my dad dies he’s going to show up on my door asking me to support him because he’s a moron who made stupid life choices and that’s why he has no money. So your problem is with your stupid brother, not anyone in this thread. No one in this thread has called homeowners stupid or implied anything bad about how they live (unlike you with that “hovel” shit). The theme of this thread has largely been “Let’s be smug about dumbass poor people!” The thread is dominated by middle class people who own houses. Just like most threads around here. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/295 "2014-12-30T18:04:03Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I think one thing that is bugging me is the blind spot people seem to have toward the costs of home ownership outside of the mortgage. > > My little apartment is cheap to heat- not many chances to heat to escape, and we have a central system that efficiently serves 300 units. My building has a single security system, which costs relatively little averaged across 300 units. We have little green space (but great parks next door), so we pay basically nothing for landscaping. Yes, maintenance is folded in to the rent, but there just isn’t all that much of it to do per unit. > > A cheap, small condo or row house that you but might be similar. But sorry, move on to a three bedroom house on an average lot, and you are going to be paying out lots of money every month that people in smaller, more efficient arrangements aren’t going to be paying. And that stuff is all “extra.” It’s not an investment. It’s not better to spend $30.00 a month on lawn bags and mulch than it is to live someplace cheap and spend the extra on a Rolex. But people can **buy** condos in high-rise LEED certified green buildings and they can \*\*rent \*\*detached homes without insulation. Nothing you commented on has anything inherent to do with renting vs owning. In very rural areas, the vast majority of the housing stock is detached homes and in urban areas the housing stock is multi-family homes and apartment buildings. Nationwide they tend to all be very energy inefficient. Basically you’re an advocate of high density living and energy efficiency, not renting. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/296 "2014-12-30T19:27:49Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > But people can **buy** condos in high-rise LEED certified green buildings and they can \*\*rent \*\*detached homes without insulation. Sure, but every location has a different set of available options. In the DC area (which IIRC, is where **even** lives as do I), it’s no small feat to find _any_ affordable home let alone one that is in a good neighborhood, is reasonably close to work, and is in good shape structurally. My fiancé and I make pretty good money when you pool our incomes, and yet we’re still finding it hard to find something. If we were looking for rentals instead, it would be easier quite simply because its easier to find an affordable apartment. They are literally everywhere. So I can totally get why someone might value the convenience of an apartment over slowly earning equity through home ownership. Broad-brush generalizations about the financial prudence of buying a home are all well and good…when you keep it general. The problem is when people are clubbed over the head with this advice, regardless of their circumstances. A couple may very well be able to afford a home in the suburbs but why should they buy that if it extends their commute by an hour and necessitates expenses (like a car) that might not have existed if they’d simply rented a place in the city? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/297 "2014-12-30T20:17:14Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I’m not suggesting that someone should try to bank on Caribbean vacations. But I reject the idea that owning a house is the only object that provides dividends (plenty of women are making their boob jobs work for them), or that it is inherently superior to experiences in improving someone’s life. Education is another one of those investments people make, and it used to clearly separate the “smart” middle-class from the “stupid” lower class. But as with home ownership, getting a degree comes with some major risks nowadays and it’s a less predictive indicator of financial worth. Not only is a degree expensive, but it can be grueling to pursue one, particularly if you’re juggling work and a social life at the same time. So I can’t blame anyone for looking at their own situation and deciding that it’s not for them. While it is true that on a population-level people with degrees are fiscally better off than people without, we shouldn’t ignore the realities that might make it equally rational for an _individual_ to prioritize other things. Same with home ownership or anything else. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/298 "2014-12-30T20:26:37Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > But people can **buy** condos in high-rise LEED certified green buildings and they can \*\*rent \*\*detached homes without insulation. Nothing you commented on has anything inherent to do with renting vs owning. In very rural areas, the vast majority of the housing stock is detached homes and in urban areas the housing stock is multi-family homes and apartment buildings. Nationwide they tend to all be very energy inefficient. Basically you’re an advocate of high density living and energy efficiency, not renting. I’m not advocating anything, and I’m not at all invested in the buying vs. renting discussion. My one and only point is that occupying a smaller space is cheaper than occupying a larger one. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/299 "2014-12-30T20:49:00Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > But the implication that middle class people who choose to buy homes are stupid (a theme of this thread) is ridiculous. Methinks you are projecting your own situation a bit onto this thread. I don’t see anybody calling homeowners “stupid,” much less that being a theme of this thread. My wife and I own two properties (one outright, the other is still being paid off), but I don’t believe home ownership is the end-all be-all financially, and it can make sense to rent even if you’re middle class in some circumstances (if you move around a lot, if you live in a market where there is a substantial gap between rental prices and mortgages and you invest the money you would have been paying off to the mortgage, etc.) I certainly don’t accept it as a given that owning property is necessarily the best investment. (I seem to recall the average market appreciation of properties being somewhere around 6%, but I can’t remember whether that takes into account all the maintenance costs, taxes, and such.) What it does do is force you to save money and build equity (generally). And it diversifies your portfolio. But what this thread is saying, from what I see, is that for most middle class people, home ownership _is_ the more sensible option, not that home ownership is stupid. I really don’t know where you got that from. ---
**Author:** ![Tuxie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ee59a6/32.png) [@Tuxie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuxie)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/300 "2014-12-30T20:49:33Z")
Like I said before, it really seems like people are overstating the costs of homeownership in terms of maintenance and utilities. Also, unless you live in rent controlled areas, rents go up over time. With a fixed rate mortgage, they don’t. Even a house that lost much of its value is still a house, and so long as you keep up with mortgage and taxes you are not getting evicted or priced out of your home like renting. And as much as I’d like to think the majority of people that rent are investing the difference, very few actually do and have nothing tangible to show for years of paying rent. Yes, if your income is too low or unreliable a mortgage is probably not for you. But I still believe having the discipline to save up a down payment does reflect fiscal responsibility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949.md?page=16)