Home ownership is only part of the picture. If you have a really nice retirement portfolio or other assets, not having any real estate isn't a problem. If you don't have any assets at all, it's time to get cranking.
Home ownership is only part of the picture. If you have a really nice retirement portfolio or other assets, not having any real estate isn't a problem. If you don't have any assets at all, it's time to get cranking.
maybe or maybe he went to grad school late - md, law school, mba and spent his savings on thator maybe he was doing something out of the ordinary and has a plan for his 40s, 50s, and 60s...i'm definitely not a person who scorns money, far from it, but for me i never worried about saving until i finished all of my school; financially that plan worked out very well for me
William J. Clinton wrote:
anEconomist wrote:worried about what? at 35 you have another 30 years of work to go...
I'd be worried about being 35 and not having enough to put down on a house. If a house costs $200K, then all it takes is $20K. If he hasn't saved that much since he started the workforce, then he is probably squandering a lot of money.
William J. Clinton wrote:
I'd be worried about being 35 and not having enough to put down on a house. If a house costs $200K, then all it takes is $20K. If he hasn't saved that much since he started the workforce, then he is probably squandering a lot of money.
There are many places in this country where 200K won't buy you a parking spot, much less a house. I don't think you can assume from the OPs post that he is squandering his money. For the first five years of my career I never made more than 80K per year (about 15K less than the median income for the county in which I lived), but still managed to put away over 125K during that time, including retirement plan contributions. I still never had near enough for a downpayment on a decent place within 30 miles of my workplace.
To the OP, renting at 35 does not make you a loser. Don't buy the hype. More than 60% of the people living in places like NYC, SF, LA, Seattle, etc... rent. Most of these people are educated, white collar, and make more than decent livings. That said, you should make sure that your finances are in order, and that your spending is under control if home ownership is one of your goals.
It's sadder if your wearing a name tag to work!
mcgato wrote:
Thus since 2004, I have refused to buy due to bubble fears. Right now I don't want to try to catch a falling knife now, so I will stay on the sidelines for at least a couple more years. At that point, I will buy if it makes financial sense.
What do you call a home buyer waiting for house prices to come down?
A renter.
it depends on your priorities. no big deal. many New Yorkers Never own a home.
The answer to the question is much different now than in the past. A significant number of recent buyers are never home owners in the traditional sense, but rather are ill capitalized real estate speculators stuck with an illiquid asset. Living within your means and renting is much better than being that situation, which some people will be stuck in for years, unless, they declare bankruptcy, or worse for their credit, simply walk from the home. So there is no basis to merit the term "loser".
I own a home, but bought it in a far different environment, where salary to asset price ratios had some sanity. And I bit the bullet and got a 15 year mortgage under 5% - I have it paid up this year. I actually long for the days when 20% down was the norm and conservative underwriting standards prevailed, and where an ARM that could jump up 2 basis points was considered risky. Had the regulators insisted on this kind of market discipline all along, asset prices would now be more realistic and the dream of home ownership would not be so illusory for so many.
quantum wrote:
I actually long for the days when 20% down was the norm and conservative underwriting standards prevailed, and where an ARM that could jump up 2 basis points was considered risky. Had the regulators insisted on this kind of market discipline all along, asset prices would now be more realistic and the dream of home ownership would not be so illusory for so many.
you got your wish. thanks to the subprime mortgage meltdown we are back to the tradional standards...of course, until the next 'boom times' occur, which, of course will have the lenders repeating the same cycle all over again.
200k wont get you jack in the places i lived, maybe a small piece of land, but you would have to build.
I wore a nametag to work when I was 30! But I enjoyed my job so...
If you cut the soles off your shoes, was living in a tree and learning to play the flute...at 35+ years old...that would be sad.
God I hope not... I'm trying to sell the house after a divorce and when all is said and done, I'll never be able to afford a house in SF again... at least not for a number of years.
As others have mentioned... maybe not a big deal. I travel 100-150 nights a year and spend lots of time in Boston with the kids.
It will be weird to have had a house at 28 and then rent at 41.
I think that all depends on your perspective of things. There are well paid professionals in parts of LA that are renting apartments because they have lucked out on leases that are under rent control. Sure they can probably buy a home, but I bet you that you couldn't pay them to move out because they save so much money from living expenses that they vacation most time of the year. I've owned before and sold during the upside of the cycle. I'd hate to be a homeowner with mortgage obligations in today's market.
Good point...
we were very conservative with our homes. Never paid PMI.
As for $200K houses... well AFTER the crash my crappy 1800 sq ft is still in the high $500Ks. Even the rents out here are brutal. A three bedroom in the town I live in is $2800 a month! Much higher than my mortgage!
Questioner about renting wrote:
With the buy house advice discussion it brought up a question. I'm 35 years old and still rent out an apartment. I earn a decent living but don't have enough cash saved up to put down on a place to buy. Is it sad to still be renting an apartment when you are 35+? For you guys that are 35+ do most of you own a place or do you still rent?
First answer three questions:
(1) Can you run a 15 min. 5K
(2) Have you had sex?
(3) Is the apartment that you rent your old room?
If you answer either no to #2 OR yes to #3 you are a loser.
#1 doesn't matter, I was just curious.
It's only sad if you rent and wear half tights...
Questioner about renting wrote:
Is it sad to still be renting an apartment when you are 35+?
Dude,
It is very sad if you are still renting at 35yrs old especially since you are in a huge buyers market! I am a Real Estate agent in Colorado. Don't worry about the downpayment . There is a special on HUD homes right now. Only $100 down!!!! Email me your contact info and I'll set you up with someone in your area who is familiar with the program.
Chao,
Nico
I think it's a little sad, but much less sad than being 35+ and in debt.
Post of the day.
Why is it sad to rent? I do. I am renting because I broke up with my GF that I was living with about 6 mo ago. The issue is I am toying with the idea of moving out of the area.
Why would I buy in this market when I am not even sure that I will even be around next year? I don't want to worry about 2 mortgages or 1 mortgage and one rent. And I wouldn't want to deal with a renter either.
It's one thing to rent from your parents or to rent a room with 5 other guys living in a house. It's another to rent and still add to your net worth putting $ away and decreasing debt.
The real question should be your net worth. Is it going in the right direction or are you dragging it down. Sure, buying makes more sence financially, but it may not be the answer in every situation. Some places are just too expensive to buy. Some areas aren't even worth it.
Owning is a step to building wealth, but you can set your self up for diaster if you can't afford the home you are in. Ask the many people that are going through a foreclosure.
The problem is that people get too caught up in hypes. 10 yrs ago, you were a fool if you weren't in the stock mkt.
4-5 yrs ago, you were a fool if you didn't own a house. Just do what you need to do and don't be anyone's fool.
things that are sad:
- my sex life
- how badly the Iraq war turned out
- that scene on the bus stop bench in You Can Count on Me
- the state of the Democratic primary
- relying on most advice from Letsrun, unless it concerns Gilmores groin or half-tights
things that are not sad:
- renting apartments
- having all the lyrics to crappy songs like Foreigner's Cold as Ice stuck in your brain on endless loop: it does suck, but it is not sad
- asking advice from Letsrun, even though most posters are 15 years old and have to get a hall pass to use the bathroom