I’m with you, Centurion. From a “business morality” standpoint, yes, it’s also deplorable. I don’t consider this (probably undecidable) issue a moral absolute though.
There was of course a time when owning a home was the cat’s meow, gateway to prosperity; etc; etc; At the present time, there are masses of folks who are 30-60% underwater and will be making payments on a principal balance essentially double those of a potential bottom-fishing new neighbor. Meanwhile, the responsible parties will be paying heightened taxes at nosebleed levels....mostly for the bailout of bankers foreign and domestic....and, if housing has bottomed right here and now (which I do not agree with but as a matter of discussion) then at 3-4-5% appreciation, a 50% underwater owner will very likely NEVER see breakeven. Morality is morality but self-enslavement isn’t attractive for an ideal that’s been seriously shot down.
Owning a home as cat’s meow is IMO equivalently an emotional state of mind as walking away is deplorable.
All this article advocates is treating the dilemma as a business decision. After all: If you’ve bought the home as a place to house your family, then it doesn’t do much good for that same family for you as breadwinner to beat your brains out, enslaving yourself for the next 27 years.
We had a house in Chino Hills....went way up, then down a little, then we sold it and next year price was WAY below what we sold it for, then over the years it went up and down and was up as much as $500,000 MORE than we paid for it and $50,000.00 LESS than we paid for it!
I DOUBT if any owner walked away....Calif. was always like this. It;s DISGUSTING that people walk away when they can pay!!! DISGUSTING!
BINGO .... I'm dead even on value versus remaining equity but then I've been there for 5.5 years and I'm in Texas (which is still doing ok).
Bottom line is this ... if you're under more than 3 years salary ... WALK. Just business but there's no benefit enslaving yourself.