Hacker News Reader

Comment by Normal_gaussian | Hacker News Reader

The only liberty that renting provides is the protection from the whims of the housing market.

Aside from that it takes liberties right left and centre. I cannot structure my house and life as I want from painting and shelving through pets and kitchen appliances.

I cannot fix something without causing a hassle and days off work.

I cannot register a business here.

I am at the whim of my landlord.

Renting in the UK is a pain in the arse. I do to see renting as particularly positive for the individual.

View on HN

German renters have a _lot_ more rights than UK ones do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatlife/11417359/Germany-...

Unfortunately they still don't approach those of an owner

That's called ownership: if it is yours, you should have right on it, is it?

Yes. That is what I am saying, to my mind ownership is vastly superior to renting. Renters are second class citizens in their homes.

It gives you the liberty to move for a better job. That's enormous when you're early in your career and switching jobs results in huge pay increases.

Even within the same city, it's really nice to move near your new job and not have a commute.

I don't see that this is a real problem for ownership. You can sell the house and buy another.

Sure its more complex than simply giving notice and leaving but it isn't hard.

That costs a combined 6% of the property in brokers fees alone. That's like, $30k every time you move.

You're assuming a $500k house price? That's quite a bit above the median in the US. The median is closer to $200k, which would be $12k for the real estate agent fees (assuming you don't use redfin, of course). And of course you can price that into your sale price.

All of which is to say that optimal housing strategy depends _very_ strongly on the realities of the local market. Buying a house for $200k on a $50k salary is quite different from buying a house for $1.2 million on a $200k salary...

Selling a house costs tens of thousands of dollars. It takes a long time and can be frustrating and emotionally draining.

Why not rent it?

On the other hand it eliminates the NIBMY problem. Since the tenants do not own their home they don't have the pressure to protect their investment. The landlord receives returns on his investment through rent on a monthly basis which lessens the risk of a sudden development reducing the value of the home. Home owners that live in their own home on the other hand face the full risk since they can only recoup their costs when they sell the property.

Which introduces the problem of "Whatever, it isn't my mine I will just move away when the area gets shit" leading to lower quality stock.

On my current street, opposite the flats further up, there is regular fly tipping and various illegal activities. The fly tipping can take weeks to be dealt with as nobody rings the council (I've started emailing the council when I notice it, but I don't walk that way often).

Renters just don't have enough skin in the game to maintain the communities.

I'm not entirely sure that NIMBY is rational with respect to maximizing the value of a real estate investment--wouldn't free construction plus taking out equity loans to build as dense as justified by demand be even better? IMHO, NIMBYism is more of a sentimental phenomenon.

That's weird. In France if you rent you are allowed all non-structural changes: paint inside walls, change floor surface, drill holes (must be filled back in when leaving), have pets, choose kitchen appliances (most units come without any). You can also register a business to some extent… I would have thought the UK would be typically more flexible in these matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com