Homeowner net worth 41 times renters': REPORT

Lets add to the endless list of logic, data, and factual mistakes SteveF has made...

Confusing correlation with causation. The renter category includes people who can't buy (including tons of super low income), the the buyer category (mostly) includes folks who have the ability to buy.

The inference you are making can only be true if folks of the same income level over long periods have more/less net worth than those who make the opposite choice. Fact is, owners have seen losse in the past few years because they own.

Arod rents, btw.

cigarette makers report smokers get threesomes at 41x the non-smoker rate....

hahahahaahhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa oh you F'nSteve.

he is always good for some laughs

I dont think this is the result of owning a home... more likely, it is just the personality type of person more likely to own vs. rent.

swe, have a look at the stevejhx thread. He thinks the opportunity cost is the same when you buy a place with cash or if you finance it 100%.

w67thstreet
about 3 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
cigarette makers report smokers get threesomes at 41x the non-smoker rate....
hahahahaahhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa oh you F'nSteve.

Does w67th's knowledge of cigarette marketing provide more proof that cigarette makers are targeting the underaged?

hahaha you real estate people are hilarious.

WOW!! Thanks for opening my eyes to this SteveF. I am a renter. How long after I buy a home can I expect my net worth to increase 41X?

Thanks

lol eric... wonder whether the net worth of homeowners when you don't count the dubious "home equity" is even positive

Shocking news: rich people wealthier than poor people; details at 11.

COrrelation is not causation. In this case, the reasons why renters might be poorer, on average, than owners is so glaringly obvious it pains me to even type this much.

Oh jason, your sacrifice to streeteasy is duly noted.