Renting a good quality home costs more than buying one, on a month to month basis, because a profit has to be built in for the landlord. Only way around that is massive government subsidies for renters, and we’ve got plenty of that.
Actually very few people in the US are so poor that they could only afford the sort of house I described, and most of those won’t stay that poor, and would soon be improving and expanding their modest starter home, or selling it for more that they paid for it (because of the value of their labor that went into it), and buying/building something bigger and better. Whatever sort of housing they end up staying in long term, they will OWN, and that has a very salutary effect on their own finances and that of their offspring who will inherit from them.
Most of the provisions of our building codes have nothing to do with real safety concerns, and everything to with providing employment for the contractors (mostly unionized) and manufacturers who lobbied for them, and with driving up the tax base (by driving out poor people) so the legislators who passed them can have more money for their ever-expanding list of government schemes. But *free* people have a right to take risks for themselves and their minor children, and as I noted, I’m fine with building code provisions that are really designed to protect adjacent property owners.
>> Renting a good quality home costs more than buying one, on a month to month basis, because a profit has to be built in for the landlord.
This is likely true — but, in exchange for putting the debt risk on the landlord rather than the poor person. Still a good deal for the broke renter.
>> Actually very few people in the US are so poor that they could only afford the sort of house I described, and most of those won’t stay that poor, and would soon be improving and expanding their modest starter home, or selling it for more that they paid for it (because of the value of their labor that went into it), and buying/building something bigger and better.
If this is true ... why not rent while you’re broke, and buy when you’re not? There is FAR less risk in renting, and broke people should not be taking financial risks.
>> Whatever sort of housing they end up staying in long term, they will OWN, and that has a very salutary effect on their own finances and that of their offspring who will inherit from them.
As you said — most people won’t be poor/broke forever. The same benefits can be felt from buying a good home when you can afford it, and renting until then, rather than buying a lousy home you can’t afford for the illusion of stability.
SnakeDoc