DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus America Should Become a Nation of Renters

That is a correct characterization. Businesses all over the Country are begging for workers and there is a segment of the population that just will not work.

Yeah, that's the same thing we heard about federal unemployment benefits. The claim was that they were drawing too much unemployment or they would go back to work.

Now that 26 states have ended those benefits, you just moved on to another excuse. Listening to you is like trying to follow the bouncing ball.

It would be interesting to know what these people are doing , or why these jobs aren't being filled.

I don't know if this is it, but when I had a mortgage or paid rent, it was a large portion of my monthly bills, and now that I don't have that hanging over me, I could survive on much less income than when I had to pay it.

There's jobs out there, why are people not taking them? I can't imagine all 9 million?? jobs are paying under minimum, or under a "living wage".

Just a guess but knowing a bit about our government, the money was probably never sent to the states, it's sitting with the federal government. And there is probably a lengthy and complicated application process by individuals to apply for the money where they have to prove they were harmed by covid and why they are entitled to relief, which then gets pooled and the state requests the funds from the federal government, who has it's own lengthy review process....

It's also highly possible that a lot of renters aren't even aware that there are funds available that they can apply for.

What I can't do is answer your questions. But what I can do is show you examples that seem to show it's far more lower paying jobs that aren't being filled.

This latest rent moratorium did not hold up in Tennessee and evictions became wide spread here about as month ago.



I'm only using the state I live in because it's an example of what happens when the eviction moratorium has been lifted. The federal unemployment benefits ended back around that time as well here in Tennessee. So there is no federal unemployment nor are you protected from evictions here.

As to your question concerning jobs paying low wages, I can only address what are posted on the states unemployment web site.



I can give you one prime example of what's going on at least in Tennessee. My son in law is a district manager of a gas station chain. He oversees many stations in a designated area. He, as with some posters on this board, blamed the fact he could not get any help on both the eviction moratorium and the fact people were drawing so much in federal combined with state unemployment benefits.

At the time I asked him what there starting pay was. He said it was $10.50. I told him that many other businesses had risen their starting wages and were even giving sign on bonuses to attract workers. He dismissed that by hanging on to what he thought the issue was.

Now, about a month later he has come around to the idea that it's the pay structure and not the benefits that seem to be more of the issue.

Tennessee I must admit however is in a unique situation. We have two years of tuition free college to our high school graduates. As such we draw a lot of higher paying jobs to our state which give employees an ample supply of opportunities to land better paying jobs. In our case one of the popular opinions is that many of those who worked in the service industry have moved on to better paying jobs in other sectors.

I know this doesn't directly answer all of your questions. I also know the job situation in my state is not typical across the country.

No, the money has been allocated to the states.

j/c

I don't know about this "no eviction" thing. I know a couple that owned a rental house. The tenant hadn't paid rent in 12 months.

He got evicted.

Every time I hear this kinda thing, I always have to wonder what people are thinking..

Did they forget how much PPP money was handed out to retail business, rental properties and many others..

They got paid,, or at least could have had they merely applied...

I own a house at the moment and have a mortgage but have toyed with the idea of moving back to an apartment.

There's one MAJOR problem with any apartment or condo that I've always had, it's that you can hear people through the walls. There's also no review system for how quiet a comple or unit itself is. That's a shame because noise should be the primary concern. Lol, maybe there's some tricks people have to selecting a place!

what a lot of people don't consider is that you can buy the individual units and pay a maintenance fee monthly, sort of like how HOA's work.

now, obviously it depends on the building itself, but if you purchase a apartment in a recently built building, you can install some soundproofing materials or panels to help with the noise.

also, as far as reducing noise that you as individual can make, thats were acoustic panels and such really come in handy.

but you can renovate the interior of an apartment building like any other home if you purchase one. apartments are definitely more affordable than houses, but when it comes to apartment vs house, its all about your preferred lifestyle.

if you're constantly on the go, like more urban living, don't want the cost of upkeep that comes with owning a home with yard space, than apartments are a great investment.

i know your pain when i was purchasing apartments as real estate investment. some apartment were just loud as hell for no reason. others were quiet, but you can hear somebody below or above you opening the sliding door to the balcony.

the big issue though is that its not necessarily the building itself but the people living there. one apartment that im renting to a nurse has a neighbor problem. its like 4 dudes living in a 2 bedroom apartment above her, and they have all their band equipment inside (drums, guitars, etc). to your point with that one specifically, no amount of sound treatment is gonna fix that problem.

however, another apartment i have that is being rented out by a family, no issues with noise. but thats because their neighbors are all older. so with that one specifically, could there be a noise problem? sure, but nobody will know until the right (or wrong) neighbors move in.

And I think that's a lot of the issue with long term apartment renting. If you choose an apartment you plan to live in long term, you have no control over the neighbors changing regularly. A lot of renters only stay for the length of the initial lease and then move on. So if you plan to stay somewhere over a long period of time, you may have several different neighbors.

When you decide to move there the neighbors may be respectful. But that can change every time their lease is up.

Of course when you purchase a home the neighbors can also change, but it's highly unlikely those buying a home will move as often and there is at least some space between you and your neighbor.

I'm still not as convinced as most that buying a home to live in long term is such a great investment. When you consider property taxes over the length of your ownership, the added cost of home owners insurance over renters insurance, maintenance over the lifetime of ownership, the money gained is often times inflated in peoples minds because they do not see that as money they spent when buying the home. Even down to appliances.

It's like the guy who brags about hitting a $100 lottery scratch off ticket. He never tells you how much he spent on losing tickets before he hit on that $100 dollar one.

I hopefully will never live in an apartment again. I hated it.

I always wanted an apartment in NYC, but that will never happen.

When I become elderly, I want to move back to Cleveland and live in a condo on the lake.

I agree.

That’s why I think more conversations on how we look at housing are important. Due to global connectivity, we have a more mobile population. Overall, that must be taken into account with rising rent as well. It’s not all “prices are out of control”. Some of that is due to the nature of society now. People are living longer, more educated, which means less births, more time committed to careers and social lives.

That just makes they traditional home in the suburbs less appealing over time.

However, I DONT want us to be a nation of renters as a large majority. That’s why we have to look at how and where we build apartment complexes, and also look to the evidence of more urban style living due to the rise of condo/townhome construction.

I would love for us to design a mortgage more suited for those style of livings. A 7-10 year mortgage on a apartment unit is doable, IMO. It’s a gloried HOA anyway due to maintenance fees, which means more financial protection for the building owners/landlords themselves.

That combined with sensible regulation such as sound installation between units and such, and I think that would help get us out of housing crisis that’s coming, as well as boost the economy. I think something like that would also help bring down the cost of construction due to multi family style living over single homes.

Just a thought anyway.

That's not the major problem from my perspective. The major problem is that if I bought a house 10 years ago and let's say, for sake of argument, my mortgage payment was $1500 (with insurance and property taxes built in) on a 30 year fixed... and somebody else rented an apartment 10 years ago and their rent was $1200...

Today my mortgage payment is still $1500. (property taxes might have gone up a little but not that much) Their rent now could quite possibly be $1600-1700 or more. Average rent in the US has gone up 30% over the last 10 years, a lot more in some areas.

Ten years from now, my mortgage payment is still going to be... $1500, even though my income will have gone up significantly over the last 20 years. Unless I aggressively paid of my 30 year fixed in 20 years, then my mortgage payment is $0 and I only owe the insurance and property taxes. And now I have an appreciating asset to sell to help fund my retirement or to leave to my kids or whatever. My rent could be $2500 or more and I own nothing.

Rent has been rising faster than incomes on average so that nice 3-5% raise you get every year is being eaten up faster by the increases in your rent, which you have no control over.

I'm not anti-renting, if people think it makes the most sense for them, if they move a lot or have other reasons, go for it.. but I enjoy having a yard for the dog and where the kids played when they were younger, I enjoy having a patio and a grill where I can entertain outside, I enjoy having a garage so I don't have to put the top up on the Jeep every night, I enjoy being able to decorate anyway that I choose and not have to worry about upsetting the landlord, my wife maybe but not the landlord.

I totally agree. I want to own my house not rent and pay off someone else's house for them. When you rent you never own anything. When you do own something the Government should never be able to tell you when or when not you can evict renters.

I always figured a rental property or two would be part of my retirement plan at some point... but I don't know if I have the patience to deal with people like that.

The Government should not be telling people who own property they can or cannot evict their tenants on the premise of them holding their end of the bargain. It is and should be a great way to supplement an income. But, it is also hard to find good renters anymore.

Only question/issue with that is - over someone's 30 year mortgage, how much did they spend roofing, perhaps siding, getting a new furnace or a/c. Property upkeep - be that paying someone to mow/fertilize, or doing it themselves. Landscaping. Those incessant "dish washer broke, microwave quit, house flooded, insurance, etc etc.

Renters, as a rule, don't have those expenses.

I own a home. I know what I paid for it. Currently, it is worth around $100,000 more than I paid for it. I also spent $35,000 to have it roofed and sided. I pay $2400 a year for prop. tax. I put windows in - myself - but it was still an expense. Foundation needs some work,

So many other 'owner' expenses over the years. So, do I come out ahead?

In one respect, yes, I have an asset I can sell. In another respect, when I sell, I have to live somewhere, right?

And yes, I've gotten the vaccine.

We've had several rentals, but sold some off over the last few years as we've gotten older and the desire to spend our free time turning them over between tenants has lessened. If you have a management company handle it, it might not be so bad, but then you're paying for that service.

We are down to just 2 units, both with long term tenants, and both pretty much maintain little things themselves , and just send us copy of the receipts, which we deduct from their next rent plus a little more if labor was involved.

The one property is one we plan to keep as it's small with little upkeep, so we figure when we get older and can't maintain our current house, we will sell it and downsize to that one.

Yes, there are other expenses in being a homeowner but they can be factored in. I would say with relative certainty that unless you bought a total lemon of a house and overpaid that the homeowner comes out better in the long run.

If you are handy and like to do things yourself (and can do them well) buy a fixer upper and you will get rewarded for your improvements. If you aren't, build a house in a development that's brand new and you should be a good 12-15 years in before the appliances start needing replaced or any of that and the foundation and structure should never really need work if you live there for 25-30 years.

There are some advantages to renting, but if you plan on being in the same general area for a long period of time, I still think owning is the better decision.

This is me thinking out loud, too, but I also imagine with renters that the appliance/structure repair and replacement rates are factored into the costs of the rent in some type of indirect cost pool.

For instance, in figuring out their operating costs, the leasing office, landlord, or whoever I'm guessing would likely take into account their overhead costs, with maintenance and repair being one of them, and probably spread them by unit on an average monthly or yearly basis. So I imagine most rental fees would cover at least an average monthly payment of general repairs and appliance replacements that would need to take place.

I guess it would also be better to pay that average rate with the guarantee you're going to have a decent place to live as opposed to all of a sudden finding out that you have a foundation defect that's going to cost a lump sum $25K to fix.

Obviously you have not heard about the HOA fees on top of rent that are used to cover these costs.

Depending where you are, they can be quite high.

I have not, as I've never dealt with a HOA.

Yes, we always figured the cost of a mortgage, taxes , insurance and an additional 10% for misc maintenance, into the rent cost.

We didn't carry mortgages on the properties, so that allowed us to cut back on our rent a little and be more picky about who we rented to. Our average tenant stayed 5+ years, which is very good in our market, part of that is because to get the same type of housing would cost more, so they only moved if they needed more space or a more convenient location.

Interesting side note. When talking to prospective tenants, many would site the reason for leaving their current housing was "The lease was up, time to move" Like people don't seam to realize they can renew a lease or something, and one young couple actually were surprised it was an option when we asked why they didn't renew with their previous landlord.

It's like they don't teach this stuff in school anymore. Schools used to at least try to get you ready for real life. We had home economics classes where we learned to cook, clean, take care of clothes and food stuff like storage and rotation, and manage a household budget. We had shop class that taught us to make things and repair things. We had civics and government classes to learn about being responsible citizens. We had history classes that looked at the good and bad attempting to extract lessons we could use to make the future better. We had a lot of things kids don't seem to have now AND we were still not well prepared, BUT we were way ahead of today's kids in being prepared... or life was easier to navigate for us... one or the other.

I gave up on thinking America would do what is best for kids and became jaded once I realized how many stupid people graduate high school and can barely spell, let alone function as a reliable and responsible adult.

AND you walked uphill both ways, too!

No that defies physics, but it was 6 feet of snow with no shoes.

Now that's just not true. Well the snow part is but we were allowed one pair of shoes every year.

Good stuff OCD.

And to play off that... the biggest part of the problem is that there is absolutely no education to the horrors of being strapped with debt. It's almost hopeless because now it's just a way off life... it's just "what you do". People buy cars and houses based on a predatory system that tells them what the can afford, for 90% of the country it's all about the payment, with no consideration to what the real price tag is.

Can't speak for the one-off landlords but yes, institutional landlords who manage complexes have a fund because they know maintenance is going to happen, they also have a fund where they put money every month because they know the life expectancy of the refrigerators, microwaves, the roof, etc. so they budget for replacement.

The upside to a renter is that your risk is limited to the amount of your rent. If you live in an apartment for 2 years and no repairs are needed, you pay your rent. If you live in an apartment for 2 years and they have to replace the fridge, the microwave, the AC, and the roof, you still just pay the rent.

I think a lot of it, at least for a lot of people is the cost of a one time hit.

Let's say you own a home. Replacing your roof could cost 20k. Then if your heating and cooling system go out, you could be hit with a another 10k or 15k.

Sure you can finance it but how many average workers can suddenly afford to take on that much added debt in a short period of time on top of paying their mortgage?

I see the advantage and disadvantage in both situations.

True, another advantage is the flip side to crappy neighbors.

In a rental, if someone moves in that you can't stand, you can pack up and move when your lease is up, much harder to do if you own the house and a new neighbor moves in that is a jerk.

This is where you have to plan when you first buy the home. If you buy a home with a 20 year old roof, understand that you will need to replace it in 5 years probably and figure out how much you are willing to pay for the house based on that knowledge.

Sometimes unexpected things happen but generally roofs, AC units, appliances, etc have a life expectancy range. So it's not rocket surgery to figure out when things are likely to crap out and how much it's going to cost to replace them BEFORE you buy the house.

And the institutional landlords also write off all those expense on a yearly basis AND get to write off the standard depreciation of nearly 4% of the purchase price... every year (up to 26 years). On a 500,000 property that's 20,000 of reduced tax liability before any of the year-to-year expenses.

And that's all fine and well. But the average life of an appliance has gone down drastically and things like foundation failures are not something one can anticipate when, if ever they might happen. There are a vast number of things that come up you can't simply anticipate or plan that may happen.

I mean it would be wonderful if everyone who buys a home could afford to take on another 30k or 40k in debt above the mortgage, insurance and taxes on their homes, but we don't live in a society where that's the rule of thumb.

With all that I've said about home ownership, if I was a first time home buyer, no way would I consider buying a home right now, at least not in my area. Housing prices are astronomical and anybody who buys one is likely to be upside down for a while once the market corrects.

Guy down the street listed his house for $450K, sold it in 4 days, best offer was $565K. Before he sold it he had the exterior painted, replaced the flooring, not sure what all he did but he had cabinet guys and plumbers and painters coming in every day for 2 weeks before he sold it. Then the couple that bought it moved in, repainted the exterior a difference color, ripped out all the carpet that was brand new, I saw cabinets going in... I think they paid $115K over asking price then had to spend at least another $20K replacing everything this guy had just done. Insane.

As I said, sometimes unexpected things happen and that's unfortunate. Usually they do not, most things are somewhat predictable, which means you can plan for them in your finances to make sure you can afford them.

By buddy recently sold his house in a exclusive neighborhood, got asking price, the appraisal came in 60k less, but the buyers accepted it.

Hurricane Irma did a number on his place and soaked the entire second floor and down through the ceiling of the Master Bedroom. They redid all the flooring and drywall, new tile roof, added roll down shutters in late 2018 (Yes took that long to get through the insurance hassle, luckily his wife works in the legal department of a major insurer, and knew how to handle these people)

The new owners had their flooring and painting contractors, and a countertop person come in an price it out before closing so they could get a jump on it. Easily put another 40-50k into it.