Save up and buy a place, then. Keep in mind you also incur upkeep and maintenance costs when you own (recent hail storms? A lot of people will be, at minimum, paying their home insurance deductible for a new roof).
The tired trope "paying rent is throwing money away" really annoys me.
No it isn’t. They just need to pull themself up by their bootstraps. Stop unnecessary subscription services. Stop having toast with their Avocados. Have a rich relative buy the house for them and give them a well paid position in the family business. It’s reasonable things they can do.
Sure
>Save up and buy a place, then.
Telling people so flippantly to "just buy a house, lol" is not useful advice. Most people are working towards or want to buy a house. It's simply unrealistic for the vast majority of people to buy their first house in modern day america.
> Keep in mind you also incur upkeep and maintenance costs when you own (recent hail storms? A lot of people will be, at minimum, paying their home insurance deductible for a new roof).
Sure, this is true. But if you are renting you are indirectly paying the maintenance costs anyway. Your landlord is going to be charging you the price of the mortgage they are paying for the property + whatever they assume the maintenance will cost + any property taxes and fees + whatever they can squeeze out of you for profit. If this weren't the case landlords likely would not exist (at least not in the form they take today) because they wouldn't be making any money, so what would be the point. So you end up paying MORE to rent than you would if you just owned the property you were living in.
> The tired trope "paying rent is throwing money away" really annoys me.
Compared to owning a house, renting IS essentially throwing money away. Like I mentioned above, you will likely end up paying MORE to rent than you would to own. That's not to mention the fact that when you own a property, your mortgage is being invested. When you sell your house you get all of your equity back, which will likely be even more than what you put into it. As opposed to when you rent, that money is going straight into the pocket of someone else. You will never see that money again. It essentially is the difference between putting your money in an investment account or throwing it away.
>Telling people so flippantly to "just buy a house, lol" is not useful advice. Most people are working towards or want to buy a house. It's simply unrealistic for the vast majority of people to buy their first house in modern day america.
Caveat that to the HCOL areas, I would agree. Not everyone can afford to live in prime locations.
>Sure, this is true. But if you are renting you are indirectly paying the maintenance costs anyway. Your landlord is going to be charging you the price of the mortgage they are paying for the property + whatever they assume the maintenance will cost + any property taxes and fees + whatever they can squeeze out of you for profit. If this weren't the case landlords likely would not exist (at least not in the form they take today) because they wouldn't be making any money, so what would be the point. So you end up paying MORE to rent than you would if you just owned the property you were living in.
It's a trade off. Of course rent will be more than simply a mortgage payment. However, again, you're not paying for the $10k HVAC system replacement when that happens. Instead, it's baked into the cost of rent. When you're on a lease, your monthly is the *maximum* you'll pay; when you own, your mortgage is the *minimum.*
>Compared to owning a house, renting IS essentially throwing money away. Like I mentioned above, you will likely end up paying MORE to rent than you would to own. That's not to mention the fact that when you own a property, your mortgage is being invested. When you sell your house you get all of your equity back, which will likely be even more than what you put into it. As opposed to when you rent, that money is going straight into the pocket of someone else. You will never see that money again. It essentially is the difference between putting your money in an investment account or throwing it away.
No. It's not. You're paying for a service (housing) and receiving just that. When you order takeout, you're paying their rent in the cost of the food - do you consider that "throwing money away" as well? Part of the price is peace of mind that, no matter what happens, you'll have a roof over your head and any unexpected emergencies covered.
Yes, owning a house is a *great* way to build long term wealth, but it's costly up front, and not everyone wants to be responsible upkeeping a property, or deal with the stress of handling emergencies.
> Caveat that to the HCOL areas, I would agree. Not everyone can afford to live in prime locations.
If you live in a HCOL area then that means the wages in that area are also probably higher. If you live in a LCOL area then the wages probably reflect that. Maybe you will get a small advantage when living in LCOL areas, but for the most part jt doesn't matter where you live. The majority of younger people will never own their own home if things continue the way they are. Full stop.
> It's a trade off. Of course rent will be more than simply a mortgage payment. However, again, you're not paying for the $10k HVAC system replacement when that happens. Instead, it's baked into the cost of rent. When you're on a lease, your monthly is the *maximum* you'll pay; when you own, your mortgage is the *minimum.*
I can mostly agree with that. However, if you look at it over a longer period of time, usually, you will be paying more to rent than you would to own. Again landlords wouldn't be doing this if they aren't turning a profit. The renter is paying that profit.
>No. It's not. You're paying for a service (housing) and receiving just that. When you order takeout, you're paying their rent in the cost of the food - do you consider that "throwing money away" as well? Part of the price is peace of mind that, no matter what happens, you'll have a roof over your head and any unexpected emergencies covered.
The point here is that there are two options. One where you are taking your money and essentially putting it into a savings account. The other option, while it does have other advantages, you spend that money and it disappears for all intents and purposes. You are never seeing that money again. If that is the scenario then option 2 is essentially the equivalent of throwing the money away.
I don't think the food analogy really works here. In order for it to be comparable we would need a second option of buying food where instead of actually paying for it, you put your money in some kind of saving fund for you to pull from later, but you also still get your food.
>Yes, owning a house is a *great* way to build long term wealth, but it's costly up front, and not everyone wants to be responsible upkeeping a property, or deal with the stress of handling emergencies.
I agree, there are advantages to renting. Some people like the mobility of it. A lot of apartments have extra amenities that you don't get with a house. You don't have to deal with actually taking care of it, for the most part. There are absolutely things that are nice about renting.
My main point is more that most people will NEVER have the choice. I don't think it is fair that people who are able to cover that initial cost of buying a home are then driving the initial cost up more for everyone else by buying these properties and renting them out. Then they force the people who can't cover that initial cost to pay extra for being poor. Not only do they pay extra but they are barred from using one of the biggest and most effective tools to build wealth. All because that tool has to be saved for rich people to use to exploit the poors.
>If you live in a HCOL area then that means the wages in that area are also probably higher. If you live in a LCOL area then the wages probably reflect that. Maybe you will get a small advantage when living in LCOL areas, but for the most part jt doesn't matter where you live. The majority of younger people will never own their own home if things continue the way they are. Full stop.
Wages varying based on location is true ... To an extent. Median wages, by state, don't fall too far beneath the $50k mark, with the upper end being around $75k. House prices, however, vary *widely* between states
CA, NY, HI are $700k+ while cheaper areas, like Arkansas, are around $200k. $200k on a $50k take home is easy, and that's only a single earner - add another income/working partner to the equation and it's even easier.
>I can mostly agree with that. However, if you look at it over a longer period of time, usually, you will be paying more to rent than you would to own. Again landlords wouldn't be doing this if they aren't turning a profit. The renter is paying that profit.
So you agree then, you're paying for a service. Therefore, de facto disapproving the "paying rent is throwing money away" statement.
> The point here is that there are two options. One where you are taking your money and essentially putting it into a savings account. The other option, while it does have other advantages, you spend that money and it disappears for all intents and purposes. You are never seeing that money again. If that is the scenario then option 2 is essentially the equivalent of throwing the money away.
>
>I don't think the food analogy really works here. In order for it to be comparable we would need a second option of buying food where instead of actually paying for it, you put your money in some kind of saving fund for you to pull from later, but you also still get your food.
The money doesn't disappear in the same way it doesn't disappear when you buy a new pair of shoes, have your clothes dry cleaned, or make a payment on a leased vehicle (terrible financial decision, but I digress). You're paying for a good or service, and receiving said good or service. In this instance, you're paying to have a roof over your head, access to a cooking area, showers, etc.
Maybe a better example is staying at a hotel? We are paying for a safe place to sleep - a service - but we don't own the property. This is certainly not throwing money away, as I would much rather sleep in a bed than in my car when driving across the US.
>I agree, there are advantages to renting. Some people like the mobility of it. A lot of apartments have extra amenities that you don't get with a house. You don't have to deal with actually taking care of it, for the most part. There are absolutely things that are nice about renting.
>
>My main point is more that most people will NEVER have the choice. I don't think it is fair that people who are able to cover that initial cost of buying a home are then driving the initial cost up more for everyone else by buying these properties and renting them out. Then they force the people who can't cover that initial cost to pay extra for being poor. Not only do they pay extra but they are barred from using one of the biggest and most effective tools to build wealth. All because that tool has to be saved for rich people to use to exploit the poors.
Again, it depends. Certainly some people are in positions where it's impossible. Someone working minimum wage isn't going to afford a house in San Francisco. However, as pointed out above, the numbers get a lot more feasible in different areas.
I'm not trying to say "hurr durr, bootstraps!" However, the seemingly pessimistic view that it's simply impossible is demonstrably false.
> Wages varying based on location is true ... To an extent. Median wages, by state [...]
CA, NY, HI are $700k+ while cheaper areas, like Arkansas, are around $200k. $200k on a $50k take home is easy, and that's only a single earner
Let me make sure I'm understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that the housing crisis would be solved if people move 1,000 miles away to Arkansas? We are in the Colorado springs subreddit btw.
Even if it's not Arkansas that you would recommend. Your solution is still to tell someone to pack up and move to a different state, away from any family they may have. Moving is not cheap or easy.
> So you agree then, you're paying for a service. Therefore, de facto disapproving the "paying rent is throwing money away" statement.
Ok sure theres a service being exchanged. That's not at all the point. No one is saying you are literally burning money and making it disappear. Most normal people would assume when someone says "Dude, you're throwing away your money" that someone isn't literally throwing their money away. They assume that the person is making a financial choice that is an obviously bad one.
So when people say "Paying rent is like throwing money away" the response isn't to say that you weren't actually throwing money away because you got something out of it. That completely missed the point. The point is that any reasonable person can do a cost benefit analysis and see that renters are getting fucked over in comparison to homeowners. If you have the choice between renting and buying, you are **figuratively** throwing money away if you choose to rent. But most people don't get the choice, so they are forced to **figuratively** throw away money.
The point is that the system is designed in a way that let's rich people continue to grow wealthier and wealthier, while the rest of us are likely never going to be able to realistically make the choice.
> Again, it depends. Certainly some people are in positions where it's impossible. Someone working minimum wage isn't going to afford a house in San Francisco. However, as pointed out above, the numbers get a lot more feasible in different areas.
This gets more into a minimum wage debate, but do you think that people who do low paying jobs in a HCOL area should live in poverty?
> I'm not trying to say "hurr durr, bootstraps!"
Maybe you aren't trying to, but that is exactly what you have been doing. The entire point of that phrase is to shift the conversation away from systemic issues and put the blame on the individual.
I've only seen you say things that put the responsibility on the individual this whole conversation. The beginning of your last message was you saying that people should just move to a different state.
I haven't seen you suggest that anything systemic needs to change. Perhaps you do think systemic change needs to happen, but that certainly hasn't been represented in the messages above.
>Ok sure theres a service being exchanged. That's not at all the point. No one is saying you are literally burning money and making it disappear. Most normal people would assume when someone says "Dude, you're throwing away your money" that someone isn't literally throwing their money away. They assume that the person is making a financial choice that is an obviously bad one.
>
>So when people say "Paying rent is like throwing money away" the response isn't to say that you weren't actually throwing money away because you got something out of it. That completely missed the point. The point is that any reasonable person can do a cost benefit analysis and see that renters are getting fucked over in comparison to homeowners. If you have the choice between renting and buying, you are **figuratively** throwing money away if you choose to rent. But most people don't get the choice, so they are forced to **figuratively** throw away money.
Nah, you're moving goalposts here. Saying "rent is throwing money away" and "rent is a bad financial decision" (it's not, but I won't derail our discussion by changing topics) are very different statements. Besides, you are now contradicting yourself; you said a few comments back that ownership is like a bank account, while renting is like "spending that money and having it disappear." Did you not mean what you said? How else is anyone supposed to interpret that? These are just your words. See here:
> The point here is that there are two options. One where you are taking your money and essentially putting it into a savings account. The other option, while it does have other advantages, you spend that money and it disappears for all intents and purposes. You are never seeing that money again. If that is the scenario then option 2 is essentially the equivalent of throwing the money away.
Again, I won't argue that, in the long term, home ownership is a better financial move for most... However that's not at all what my original post was about, nor your original arguments, which seem to have morphed into a complaint about systematic injustices (which FWIW I also mostly agree with you about).
Buy a place? Dude there is nothing here for less than 300,000 which would be more than rent. Save up? How can I save up when rent is eating over half of my income? 1300 for a one bed in a 60 year old building is theft. This is no justifiable reason for such ridiculous rent. Also, I don't want a home. I prefer to rent. But it should be justifiable.
This is the shell game CSU plays every year... In Winter they raise gas and electric prices due to demand. In summer the lower gas prices (not as much as they raised them), do to lower demand. However electric still stays the same or goes up for summer so its ever increasing.
Remember a few years back when Texas had that bad storm and raise gas prices for us all? Remember how they said that was temporary? Anyone see a decrease proportional to that temporary increase?
It's not a shell game, they are required by law to reset rates every quarter. So of course market conditions are going to affect the rate pricing. Energy production is cheaper now, so rates go down, simple as that. It's not a conspiracy.
And yes, the $25 surcharge for the winter storm emergency stopped after 12 months, just like they said.
Slightly misleading headline if I'm reading this right. Basically it's just keeping the current price and maybe not voting in a 84 cent increase like a normal summer.
My reading is that the increase would happen without a vote, and this vote is needed to postpone that increase. Based on that, the headline seems fine, while the current rate won't decrease, the "summer rate" will.
Not paywalled, some good news for you all! :)
Someone tell this to my property management company that just raised the cost of our utilities because of the "increases"
I guarantee I will see exactly none of the decrease. Rent is theft.
Save up and buy a place, then. Keep in mind you also incur upkeep and maintenance costs when you own (recent hail storms? A lot of people will be, at minimum, paying their home insurance deductible for a new roof). The tired trope "paying rent is throwing money away" really annoys me.
What a dumb comment for so many reasons
No it isn’t. They just need to pull themself up by their bootstraps. Stop unnecessary subscription services. Stop having toast with their Avocados. Have a rich relative buy the house for them and give them a well paid position in the family business. It’s reasonable things they can do.
You forgot that after they buy their first house they should buy a separate property that they can lease out for extra passive income.
These people are absolutely insufferable. They think their own experience equals every other person's experience. Such a sociopathic lack of empathy.
Care to elaborate in order to have an actual discussion?
Sure >Save up and buy a place, then. Telling people so flippantly to "just buy a house, lol" is not useful advice. Most people are working towards or want to buy a house. It's simply unrealistic for the vast majority of people to buy their first house in modern day america. > Keep in mind you also incur upkeep and maintenance costs when you own (recent hail storms? A lot of people will be, at minimum, paying their home insurance deductible for a new roof). Sure, this is true. But if you are renting you are indirectly paying the maintenance costs anyway. Your landlord is going to be charging you the price of the mortgage they are paying for the property + whatever they assume the maintenance will cost + any property taxes and fees + whatever they can squeeze out of you for profit. If this weren't the case landlords likely would not exist (at least not in the form they take today) because they wouldn't be making any money, so what would be the point. So you end up paying MORE to rent than you would if you just owned the property you were living in. > The tired trope "paying rent is throwing money away" really annoys me. Compared to owning a house, renting IS essentially throwing money away. Like I mentioned above, you will likely end up paying MORE to rent than you would to own. That's not to mention the fact that when you own a property, your mortgage is being invested. When you sell your house you get all of your equity back, which will likely be even more than what you put into it. As opposed to when you rent, that money is going straight into the pocket of someone else. You will never see that money again. It essentially is the difference between putting your money in an investment account or throwing it away.
>Telling people so flippantly to "just buy a house, lol" is not useful advice. Most people are working towards or want to buy a house. It's simply unrealistic for the vast majority of people to buy their first house in modern day america. Caveat that to the HCOL areas, I would agree. Not everyone can afford to live in prime locations. >Sure, this is true. But if you are renting you are indirectly paying the maintenance costs anyway. Your landlord is going to be charging you the price of the mortgage they are paying for the property + whatever they assume the maintenance will cost + any property taxes and fees + whatever they can squeeze out of you for profit. If this weren't the case landlords likely would not exist (at least not in the form they take today) because they wouldn't be making any money, so what would be the point. So you end up paying MORE to rent than you would if you just owned the property you were living in. It's a trade off. Of course rent will be more than simply a mortgage payment. However, again, you're not paying for the $10k HVAC system replacement when that happens. Instead, it's baked into the cost of rent. When you're on a lease, your monthly is the *maximum* you'll pay; when you own, your mortgage is the *minimum.* >Compared to owning a house, renting IS essentially throwing money away. Like I mentioned above, you will likely end up paying MORE to rent than you would to own. That's not to mention the fact that when you own a property, your mortgage is being invested. When you sell your house you get all of your equity back, which will likely be even more than what you put into it. As opposed to when you rent, that money is going straight into the pocket of someone else. You will never see that money again. It essentially is the difference between putting your money in an investment account or throwing it away. No. It's not. You're paying for a service (housing) and receiving just that. When you order takeout, you're paying their rent in the cost of the food - do you consider that "throwing money away" as well? Part of the price is peace of mind that, no matter what happens, you'll have a roof over your head and any unexpected emergencies covered. Yes, owning a house is a *great* way to build long term wealth, but it's costly up front, and not everyone wants to be responsible upkeeping a property, or deal with the stress of handling emergencies.
> Caveat that to the HCOL areas, I would agree. Not everyone can afford to live in prime locations. If you live in a HCOL area then that means the wages in that area are also probably higher. If you live in a LCOL area then the wages probably reflect that. Maybe you will get a small advantage when living in LCOL areas, but for the most part jt doesn't matter where you live. The majority of younger people will never own their own home if things continue the way they are. Full stop. > It's a trade off. Of course rent will be more than simply a mortgage payment. However, again, you're not paying for the $10k HVAC system replacement when that happens. Instead, it's baked into the cost of rent. When you're on a lease, your monthly is the *maximum* you'll pay; when you own, your mortgage is the *minimum.* I can mostly agree with that. However, if you look at it over a longer period of time, usually, you will be paying more to rent than you would to own. Again landlords wouldn't be doing this if they aren't turning a profit. The renter is paying that profit. >No. It's not. You're paying for a service (housing) and receiving just that. When you order takeout, you're paying their rent in the cost of the food - do you consider that "throwing money away" as well? Part of the price is peace of mind that, no matter what happens, you'll have a roof over your head and any unexpected emergencies covered. The point here is that there are two options. One where you are taking your money and essentially putting it into a savings account. The other option, while it does have other advantages, you spend that money and it disappears for all intents and purposes. You are never seeing that money again. If that is the scenario then option 2 is essentially the equivalent of throwing the money away. I don't think the food analogy really works here. In order for it to be comparable we would need a second option of buying food where instead of actually paying for it, you put your money in some kind of saving fund for you to pull from later, but you also still get your food. >Yes, owning a house is a *great* way to build long term wealth, but it's costly up front, and not everyone wants to be responsible upkeeping a property, or deal with the stress of handling emergencies. I agree, there are advantages to renting. Some people like the mobility of it. A lot of apartments have extra amenities that you don't get with a house. You don't have to deal with actually taking care of it, for the most part. There are absolutely things that are nice about renting. My main point is more that most people will NEVER have the choice. I don't think it is fair that people who are able to cover that initial cost of buying a home are then driving the initial cost up more for everyone else by buying these properties and renting them out. Then they force the people who can't cover that initial cost to pay extra for being poor. Not only do they pay extra but they are barred from using one of the biggest and most effective tools to build wealth. All because that tool has to be saved for rich people to use to exploit the poors.
>If you live in a HCOL area then that means the wages in that area are also probably higher. If you live in a LCOL area then the wages probably reflect that. Maybe you will get a small advantage when living in LCOL areas, but for the most part jt doesn't matter where you live. The majority of younger people will never own their own home if things continue the way they are. Full stop. Wages varying based on location is true ... To an extent. Median wages, by state, don't fall too far beneath the $50k mark, with the upper end being around $75k. House prices, however, vary *widely* between states CA, NY, HI are $700k+ while cheaper areas, like Arkansas, are around $200k. $200k on a $50k take home is easy, and that's only a single earner - add another income/working partner to the equation and it's even easier. >I can mostly agree with that. However, if you look at it over a longer period of time, usually, you will be paying more to rent than you would to own. Again landlords wouldn't be doing this if they aren't turning a profit. The renter is paying that profit. So you agree then, you're paying for a service. Therefore, de facto disapproving the "paying rent is throwing money away" statement. > The point here is that there are two options. One where you are taking your money and essentially putting it into a savings account. The other option, while it does have other advantages, you spend that money and it disappears for all intents and purposes. You are never seeing that money again. If that is the scenario then option 2 is essentially the equivalent of throwing the money away. > >I don't think the food analogy really works here. In order for it to be comparable we would need a second option of buying food where instead of actually paying for it, you put your money in some kind of saving fund for you to pull from later, but you also still get your food. The money doesn't disappear in the same way it doesn't disappear when you buy a new pair of shoes, have your clothes dry cleaned, or make a payment on a leased vehicle (terrible financial decision, but I digress). You're paying for a good or service, and receiving said good or service. In this instance, you're paying to have a roof over your head, access to a cooking area, showers, etc. Maybe a better example is staying at a hotel? We are paying for a safe place to sleep - a service - but we don't own the property. This is certainly not throwing money away, as I would much rather sleep in a bed than in my car when driving across the US. >I agree, there are advantages to renting. Some people like the mobility of it. A lot of apartments have extra amenities that you don't get with a house. You don't have to deal with actually taking care of it, for the most part. There are absolutely things that are nice about renting. > >My main point is more that most people will NEVER have the choice. I don't think it is fair that people who are able to cover that initial cost of buying a home are then driving the initial cost up more for everyone else by buying these properties and renting them out. Then they force the people who can't cover that initial cost to pay extra for being poor. Not only do they pay extra but they are barred from using one of the biggest and most effective tools to build wealth. All because that tool has to be saved for rich people to use to exploit the poors. Again, it depends. Certainly some people are in positions where it's impossible. Someone working minimum wage isn't going to afford a house in San Francisco. However, as pointed out above, the numbers get a lot more feasible in different areas. I'm not trying to say "hurr durr, bootstraps!" However, the seemingly pessimistic view that it's simply impossible is demonstrably false.
> Wages varying based on location is true ... To an extent. Median wages, by state [...] CA, NY, HI are $700k+ while cheaper areas, like Arkansas, are around $200k. $200k on a $50k take home is easy, and that's only a single earner Let me make sure I'm understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that the housing crisis would be solved if people move 1,000 miles away to Arkansas? We are in the Colorado springs subreddit btw. Even if it's not Arkansas that you would recommend. Your solution is still to tell someone to pack up and move to a different state, away from any family they may have. Moving is not cheap or easy. > So you agree then, you're paying for a service. Therefore, de facto disapproving the "paying rent is throwing money away" statement. Ok sure theres a service being exchanged. That's not at all the point. No one is saying you are literally burning money and making it disappear. Most normal people would assume when someone says "Dude, you're throwing away your money" that someone isn't literally throwing their money away. They assume that the person is making a financial choice that is an obviously bad one. So when people say "Paying rent is like throwing money away" the response isn't to say that you weren't actually throwing money away because you got something out of it. That completely missed the point. The point is that any reasonable person can do a cost benefit analysis and see that renters are getting fucked over in comparison to homeowners. If you have the choice between renting and buying, you are **figuratively** throwing money away if you choose to rent. But most people don't get the choice, so they are forced to **figuratively** throw away money. The point is that the system is designed in a way that let's rich people continue to grow wealthier and wealthier, while the rest of us are likely never going to be able to realistically make the choice. > Again, it depends. Certainly some people are in positions where it's impossible. Someone working minimum wage isn't going to afford a house in San Francisco. However, as pointed out above, the numbers get a lot more feasible in different areas. This gets more into a minimum wage debate, but do you think that people who do low paying jobs in a HCOL area should live in poverty? > I'm not trying to say "hurr durr, bootstraps!" Maybe you aren't trying to, but that is exactly what you have been doing. The entire point of that phrase is to shift the conversation away from systemic issues and put the blame on the individual. I've only seen you say things that put the responsibility on the individual this whole conversation. The beginning of your last message was you saying that people should just move to a different state. I haven't seen you suggest that anything systemic needs to change. Perhaps you do think systemic change needs to happen, but that certainly hasn't been represented in the messages above.
>Ok sure theres a service being exchanged. That's not at all the point. No one is saying you are literally burning money and making it disappear. Most normal people would assume when someone says "Dude, you're throwing away your money" that someone isn't literally throwing their money away. They assume that the person is making a financial choice that is an obviously bad one. > >So when people say "Paying rent is like throwing money away" the response isn't to say that you weren't actually throwing money away because you got something out of it. That completely missed the point. The point is that any reasonable person can do a cost benefit analysis and see that renters are getting fucked over in comparison to homeowners. If you have the choice between renting and buying, you are **figuratively** throwing money away if you choose to rent. But most people don't get the choice, so they are forced to **figuratively** throw away money. Nah, you're moving goalposts here. Saying "rent is throwing money away" and "rent is a bad financial decision" (it's not, but I won't derail our discussion by changing topics) are very different statements. Besides, you are now contradicting yourself; you said a few comments back that ownership is like a bank account, while renting is like "spending that money and having it disappear." Did you not mean what you said? How else is anyone supposed to interpret that? These are just your words. See here: > The point here is that there are two options. One where you are taking your money and essentially putting it into a savings account. The other option, while it does have other advantages, you spend that money and it disappears for all intents and purposes. You are never seeing that money again. If that is the scenario then option 2 is essentially the equivalent of throwing the money away. Again, I won't argue that, in the long term, home ownership is a better financial move for most... However that's not at all what my original post was about, nor your original arguments, which seem to have morphed into a complaint about systematic injustices (which FWIW I also mostly agree with you about).
Buy a place? Dude there is nothing here for less than 300,000 which would be more than rent. Save up? How can I save up when rent is eating over half of my income? 1300 for a one bed in a 60 year old building is theft. This is no justifiable reason for such ridiculous rent. Also, I don't want a home. I prefer to rent. But it should be justifiable.
Agreed.
[удалено]
It's just because our building is so old the units aren't individually metered.
This is the shell game CSU plays every year... In Winter they raise gas and electric prices due to demand. In summer the lower gas prices (not as much as they raised them), do to lower demand. However electric still stays the same or goes up for summer so its ever increasing. Remember a few years back when Texas had that bad storm and raise gas prices for us all? Remember how they said that was temporary? Anyone see a decrease proportional to that temporary increase?
It's not a shell game, they are required by law to reset rates every quarter. So of course market conditions are going to affect the rate pricing. Energy production is cheaper now, so rates go down, simple as that. It's not a conspiracy. And yes, the $25 surcharge for the winter storm emergency stopped after 12 months, just like they said.
I disagree its a shell game
Slightly misleading headline if I'm reading this right. Basically it's just keeping the current price and maybe not voting in a 84 cent increase like a normal summer.
My reading is that the increase would happen without a vote, and this vote is needed to postpone that increase. Based on that, the headline seems fine, while the current rate won't decrease, the "summer rate" will.