Car prices are still insane.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The cost of renting vs owning usually depends most on duration. A person that will only be in the area for a year isn't going to come out ahead by paying the closing cost overhead of buying a house.
-snip-
If you want to find 'reasons' to [not buy in a certain area, even if it's cheaper], your creativity will never disappoint.

Isn't that kind of the same thing? How can I be sure I want to live in Michigan for 5 or more years if I'm not sure I want to live there at all?

Obviously I could buy here, where I like it and wouldn't mind living here until the day I die. But the loan would be half my income, and that's only if the stars and planets align and I get drawn in a low-income-housing lottery pool and meet all the qualifications.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Your situation isn't as costly as someone that owns neither, but you're not putting money into the thing that appreciates in value, and there is no cost stability since the landowner can increase rent (or tell you to move).

An informed analysis of your financial situation can't be done without getting into the nitty gritty details. My speculation is that you'd be financially ahead purchasing a house/property if you could own it at least 7 years, but my uninformed speculation is not something to act on.

If you want to find 'reasons' to not secure financial stability, your creativity will never disappoint.

Point well taken. But again, is the only point of life is to come out financially ahead? Yes, there's a chance lot rent could go through the roof here some day, or I get kicked out, un-moveable trailer and all. But owning a home isn't 100% fool proof either.

• A debilitating accident or disease that doesn't let someone work enough and pay their mortgage for a certain amount of time
• or certain natural disasters not covered by insurance
• or living in an area where the factory does close and there's no more work and now the property is worth nothing

are all possibilities even if you have a mortgage. And even if a person does attain financial security. Then what? Everything costs something. I've known a lot of people who have obtained financial security at the cost of their families, their marriages, and their happiness. I'm of the sort that feels that happiness security and marriage security are more important than financial security.

I wonder if buying a house in a cheaper area while renting here is a possibility. A $20,000 single bedroom house in Michigan is a pretty cheap backup plan. It could be hard to maintain from 1,500 miles away, but it would be cheaper to keep renting here and purchase there than to try to buy here.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

How can I be sure I want to live in Michigan for 5 or more years if I'm not sure I want to live there at all?

How long have you lived within 25 miles of where you currently live?

is the only point of life is to come out financially ahead?

The point of life is to optimize decisions, and that includes financial stability.

If financial stability isn't valued very highly, then one doesn't need to optimize for it.

You're the one bringing up financial concerns though, which leads us to believe it's something that weighs on you. If antenna locations are more important than having housing price stability, then I don't know what to say other than don't complain in a public forum about the price of things.

The thing is, the sooner one stops spending on rent and depreciating liabilities, the more they benefit. Having 20 years left is better than having 10 years left.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I wonder if they would send me to work in Mexico because hablo español

Or maybe to Brazil if you were crazy enough to accept it...

[freebeard]

Wouldn't that be 'falar português'?

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

How long have you lived within 25 miles of where you currently live?

Almost 30 years.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The point of life is to optimize decisions, and that includes financial stability.

If financial stability isn't valued very highly, then one doesn't need to optimize for it.

But what if the logical method to obtaining financial stability means most everything else gets deleted from the priority list, or at least the wants list?

To put it bluntly, yes, buying a house with property that is within my means is logically more likely to save me from a potentially expensive, perhaps impossible, monthly rent expense sometime in the future. But at the same time I do not like the idea.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You're the one bringing up financial concerns though, which leads us to believe it's something that weighs on you. If antenna locations are more important than having housing price stability, then I don't know what to say other than don't complain in a public forum about the price of things.

Fair enough. Yes, I may make up some silly excuses for not liking the solution to my complaints. But how else do I benefit from moving far away? The only benefit I'm seeing is better financial security. I'm not saying that it isn't worth it. But to say I better give up being close to family and give up my sports, hobbies and other likes for financial security isn't very convincing.

TBH, I can't have a ham radio antenna on my trailer I bought, and so it is all portable so I can set it up somewhere else. But why does financial stability have to be the one and only reason? Why can't looking for a place that would be suitable for ham radio, a future EVSE, and other things my wife and I enjoy?

Or why not work out something else that could work out? I pay $350 in rent per month. In stead of jumping to a $1,400 house payment, why couldn't I stay where I am for now and pay $1,000 somewhere else and move when rent goes up?

Originally Posted by redpoint5

don't complain in a public forum about the price of things.

Ok. But it is a forum about modding things to bring the price of them down. Yes, I could complain less, but I got to have some sort of price problem that needs modding in order to try to ecomod it. On the other hand, perhaps the problem isn't the problem but the way I say it.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The thing is, the sooner one stops spending on rent and depreciating liabilities, the more they benefit. Having 20 years left is better than having 10 years left.

I'm with JSH on this one. Unless I or my wife live to be more than 80 and we are able to pay off the house without foreclosing then there is no real benefit if we stop spending on rent with the exception of price locking. Having an asset that potentially wasn't fully paid for when you're dead is not an asset.

[freebeard]

But at the same time I do not like the idea.

They call it 'real estate' but it's really a legal fiction. But.... property rights, what are you going to do?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

In Flint I found a few single bedroom places for $20k to $35k. Most were built in the 20's, but this one was built in 1955 according to Zillow:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1...73936679_zpid/

It looks like a horrible place to live as an amateur radio operator though with those power lines right there.

I specifically picked a place you might actually want to live . In Flint the West and South side of town is the "good" part of town. The North and East side are the "bad" part of town. Looking a grid of house prices on Zillow the lines are easy to see.

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I'm with JSH on this one. Unless I or my wife live to be more than 80 and we are able to pay off the house without foreclosing then there is no real benefit if we stop spending on rent with the exception of price locking. Having an asset that potentially wasn't fully paid for when you're dead is not an asset.

A house that isn't paid off is an asset. If you died owning a $300K house with a $100K mortgage your kids would inherit $200K when the house is sold.

Selling mom and dad's house at their death is the most common way wealth is transferred between generations in the USA.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

Selling mom and dad's house at their death is the most common way wealth is transferred between generations in the USA.

My parents would still be living in the ~125 year old farm house that has 1 bathroom that is falling away from the house (it was added on after the invention of bathrooms), and has no insulation, if it wasn't for inheriting my grandparent's property in Hesperia.

They leveled a section of a hill away from the street and moved a 2.5-wide manufactured home to that location, and then completely updated it (new floors, siding, paint, roof). Now they've got 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms on a single level.

If one doesn't want to give their equity away to their children, they could always do a reverse mortgage where you get a monthly check that draws from the equity.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

I specifically picked a place you might actually want to live . In Flint the West and South side of town is the "good" part of town. The North and East side are the "bad" part of town. Looking a grid of house prices on Zillow the lines are easy to see.

I see. Thanks!

We are hopefully going to New York this spring. Maybe we could make time to drive by Flint and other prospective areas.

Originally Posted by JSH

A house that isn't paid off is an asset. If you died owning a $300K house with a $100K mortgage your kids would inherit $200K when the house is sold.

Selling mom and dad's house at their death is the most common way wealth is transferred between generations in the USA.

Point taken.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My parents would still be living in the ~125 year old farm house that has 1 bathroom that is falling away from the house (it was added on after the invention of bathrooms), and has no insulation, if it wasn't for inheriting my grandparent's property in Hesperia.

They leveled a section of a hill away from the street and moved a 2.5-wide manufactured home to that location, and then completely updated it (new floors, siding, paint, roof). Now they've got 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms on a single level.

If one doesn't want to give their equity away to their children, they could always do a reverse mortgage where you get a monthly check that draws from the equity.

My siblings and I joke that whoever wants our parents' house will be the one to change their diapers.

[redpoint5]

I'm dismayed at how frequently normal people turn into hyenas when parents die and the estate needs to be distributed.

I'm the only one that liked my grandfather and spent time with him. If he wanted to give nothing to me upon his death and donate it all to charity, I'd have no problem with that. Was never my money.

Recently I discovered I'm to inherit a 25% share. No idea what that amounts to, and it makes no difference in how I handle my financial affairs. I always encouraged him to spend his wealth while he could, because he had earned it. Wish he'd have seen Europe since that was an interest of his.