Anone find it interesting that the NY Times is suddenly trashing home ownership?
Started by Riversider
about 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
Discussion about
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/garden/07men.html?em=&pagewanted=all I understand why the government or society wants people to have homes,” he said — they fix them up, and their commitment stabilizes neighborhoods. “I get it, the whole beneficial aspect of homeownership. But individually, I’m not seeing it as a moral good.” As it turns out, Mr. Berks is not alone in his disdain. For reasons... [more]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/garden/07men.html?em=&pagewanted=all
I understand why the government or society wants people to have homes,” he said — they fix them up, and their commitment stabilizes neighborhoods. “I get it, the whole beneficial aspect of homeownership. But individually, I’m not seeing it as a moral good.”
As it turns out, Mr. Berks is not alone in his disdain. For reasons practical, financial and definitely emotional, there seems to be a growing cohort of men like him who are falling out of love with the holy institution of homeownership.
The numbers behind this disenchantment are only suggestive. Men and women under the age of 40 report roughly equal levels of satisfaction with homeownership, according to a large national study by the Center for Community Capital at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Yet the behavior of single men and women hints at divergent gender attitudes toward homeownership.
--------------------------------------
And there was this the other day
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10FOB-wwln-t.html[less]
Response by NWT
about 16 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008
So, who at the NYT keeps track of the cabal of the week? If they imply anything positive about owning, they're accused of being in the clutches of the NAR. If anything positive about renting, they're catering to their rental advertisers.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by anonymous
about 16 years ago
when the biggest cheerleader for RE throws in the towel you know you've hit bottom
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 16 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
interesting how neither of those articles were in the real estate section.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
Not that interesting. Real Estate section is revenue generator. Why offend the advertisers?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 16 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
read wannabuy's comment. not that interesting that the nytimes would espouse walking away either, when it's become a rather mainstream notion.
The NY Times has an article today about, basically, how much home ownership sucks. I think the key is that owning a home (like everything else in life?) is much easier if you don't have to worry about money. It's WICKED expensive, and that's why the current housing situation is all the more precarious - homeowners with little or no money down are massively leveraged. Some of them are intentionally leveraged to provide maximum return, but I'd guess that most are leveraged because they simply couldn't afford to put more money down. If you spend your last dollars on a 3% down payment, you're going to be hosed when you need minor repairs. The Times article mentions a family whose swimming season was ended when "$500 worth of pool pump filters died." They show a picture of the homeowner sitting beside his algae ridden pool. I have no idea how much this home owner makes, if he has savings, or what his mortgage looks like, but if $500 is going to be an impossible expense for you, then maybe you should reconsider buying a home with a pool.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 16 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
look, as someone else wrote, the pool is the least of this guy's worries. home ownership is a fine concept, generally, for many people, much of the time. but not in a bubble. not when incomes are stagnant and prices of homes and fixed costs are skyrocketing, and rent is cheaper. not when the whole f'ng economy is running on home ownership and HEW.
it's not differential equations. simple math. if the mainstream media is finally figuring that out, more power to them.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
Agree home ownership is fine concept. They key is making sure you have a cushion built into the purchase math. Nothing works 100% to plan. Bubble just means there was group think out there. Does anyone have any stats or care to guess how many people bought "more home" than they needed for no other reason than speculating on HPA home price appreciation?.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 16 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
you are so busy looking for villians in this piece. it's tiresome. anyone care to guess how many people were trying to buy a home for themselves and/or their family to live in and exist?
remember, the median home purchase last year was about half a room larger than the median 30 years ago. stil a 3 bedroom 1 bath. quit trying to oversensationalize this. people f'd up. some people didn't, and they still may be paying the price.
no, bubble means there was a concerted effort by many to encourage and promote the purchasing of homes. "group think" has always generally over time held that home ownership is a grand idea. and we don't agree at all. quit being so cutesy. home ownership is a fine concept SOMETIMES. and generally over the years people have bought quite successfully with little cushion. but history isn't your strong suit.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
about 16 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
yes....so tiresome to always be looking to blame someone....blame them. endless blaming. hey--its been ten minutes without blaming obama. lets blame him.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 16 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
actually the problem is that you can blame extell, but they won't replace the defective one.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by alanhart
about 16 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007
The Defective One needs to be removed, and NOT replaced.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
about 16 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
yes indeed. soon we'll be seeing streeteasycomm1.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 16 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
i think the One is performing according to model specifications. just a flawed design concept.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCMatt
about 16 years ago
Posts: 7523
Member since: May 2009
Let's see. City people who have no business buying a house n the SUBURBS. People who get divorced. People who buy WAY too much house.
This is an article more about stupid buying choices, rather than stupid decisions to BUY.
So, who at the NYT keeps track of the cabal of the week? If they imply anything positive about owning, they're accused of being in the clutches of the NAR. If anything positive about renting, they're catering to their rental advertisers.
when the biggest cheerleader for RE throws in the towel you know you've hit bottom
interesting how neither of those articles were in the real estate section.
Not that interesting. Real Estate section is revenue generator. Why offend the advertisers?
read wannabuy's comment. not that interesting that the nytimes would espouse walking away either, when it's become a rather mainstream notion.
http://fridayinvegas.blogspot.com/2010/01/joys-of-home-ownership.html
The NY Times has an article today about, basically, how much home ownership sucks. I think the key is that owning a home (like everything else in life?) is much easier if you don't have to worry about money. It's WICKED expensive, and that's why the current housing situation is all the more precarious - homeowners with little or no money down are massively leveraged. Some of them are intentionally leveraged to provide maximum return, but I'd guess that most are leveraged because they simply couldn't afford to put more money down. If you spend your last dollars on a 3% down payment, you're going to be hosed when you need minor repairs. The Times article mentions a family whose swimming season was ended when "$500 worth of pool pump filters died." They show a picture of the homeowner sitting beside his algae ridden pool. I have no idea how much this home owner makes, if he has savings, or what his mortgage looks like, but if $500 is going to be an impossible expense for you, then maybe you should reconsider buying a home with a pool.
look, as someone else wrote, the pool is the least of this guy's worries. home ownership is a fine concept, generally, for many people, much of the time. but not in a bubble. not when incomes are stagnant and prices of homes and fixed costs are skyrocketing, and rent is cheaper. not when the whole f'ng economy is running on home ownership and HEW.
it's not differential equations. simple math. if the mainstream media is finally figuring that out, more power to them.
Agree home ownership is fine concept. They key is making sure you have a cushion built into the purchase math. Nothing works 100% to plan. Bubble just means there was group think out there. Does anyone have any stats or care to guess how many people bought "more home" than they needed for no other reason than speculating on HPA home price appreciation?.
you are so busy looking for villians in this piece. it's tiresome. anyone care to guess how many people were trying to buy a home for themselves and/or their family to live in and exist?
remember, the median home purchase last year was about half a room larger than the median 30 years ago. stil a 3 bedroom 1 bath. quit trying to oversensationalize this. people f'd up. some people didn't, and they still may be paying the price.
no, bubble means there was a concerted effort by many to encourage and promote the purchasing of homes. "group think" has always generally over time held that home ownership is a grand idea. and we don't agree at all. quit being so cutesy. home ownership is a fine concept SOMETIMES. and generally over the years people have bought quite successfully with little cushion. but history isn't your strong suit.
yes....so tiresome to always be looking to blame someone....blame them. endless blaming. hey--its been ten minutes without blaming obama. lets blame him.
actually the problem is that you can blame extell, but they won't replace the defective one.
The Defective One needs to be removed, and NOT replaced.
yes indeed. soon we'll be seeing streeteasycomm1.
i think the One is performing according to model specifications. just a flawed design concept.
Let's see. City people who have no business buying a house n the SUBURBS. People who get divorced. People who buy WAY too much house.
This is an article more about stupid buying choices, rather than stupid decisions to BUY.