
Owning Your Own Home Is Even More Stupid Than Running Your Own Servers - joelx
https://joelx.com/owning-your-own-home-is-even-more-stupid-than-owning-servers/15328/
======
mothsonasloth
This article illustrates a cultural problem that is emerging especially with
the 20-30s generation.

You can try blaming it on baby boomers, high living costs, lifestyle choices,
avocados etc.

They don't care about ownership or property and instead want to consume
everything as a service right away for convenience. This might be a one off
service or something they are tied into with some contract.

I'm 31 and my peers either can't or won't buy property, cars, phones, kitchen
utensils or other assets.

It's like feudalism 2.0, there's a whole bunch of people who own nothing now
and are tied into contracts which can be quite onerous. Serfdom 2.0 for the
middle classes. Ready to be milked by the people who own these services.

Another example is the music market. It's become intangible with Spotify etc.
I still keep digital copies of music and host a Plex server which I control.
Noone can deny me access that way. I still have CDs if something really goes
wrong.

It's almost like it's cool to be a consumer of Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo,
Lime, DriveNow instead of painstakingly saving for that second hand car or
holiday at that hotel resort.

~~~
joelx
It's far more efficient to share resources then to buy. That is why Uber makes
sense. If you own your own car, it might get used on average 40 minutes per
day. With Uber that resource is used at least 10 hours each day.

By the way, I think baby boomers are the worst generation in history. They're
incredibly selfish and have caused huge externalities (climate change,
national debt, global destabilization). The greed of the baby boomers has
meant that the average standard of living and income has dropped for those
coming behind them. We should eliminate benefits these people voted for
themselves including Social Security and Medicare. No one else will get them
later.

~~~
perl4ever
"It's far more efficient to share resources then to buy"

If it was more efficient, it wouldn't be more expensive. If it wasn't more
expensive, there wouldn't be all these huge startups.

~~~
joshuamorton
You've got that exactly backwards:

If it was more expensive, the startups couldn't afford to exist. It costs me
more to pay for parking where I live than to pay for rideshares multiple times
a week.

Thats just parking, not to mention insurance or, you know, the actual vehicle.

~~~
esotericn
Not necessarily.

Taxis don't only exist due to cost. It's more convenient to take a cab across
London because even if you have unlimited money, finding parking is a pain in
the arse, you have to think about it, etc.

Or you might just be tipsy after a night out.

I've never taken a cab to save money; I'm not sure I've ever been in a
situation where it would be cheaper than just taking public transport or
driving.

It's just a different option with different pros and cons.

------
mister_hn
As millennial and house owner in Berlin, I totally disagree with those
statements. If you try to rent an apartment as a family of 4 (say, min. 85-90
m²), you have to pay at least something not less than 900€, excluding annual
costs review, electricity, internet and so on. On top of that, there's the
"incremental-steps", set usually on 3%. Sure, owning a house is not easy and
requires efforts, but in the era of 0% interests or negative interests, buying
a house in a Big City IMHO represents a far better investment than keeping
money in a bank account or giving away for rental.

A House can also work as insurance: if for some reasons you are facing
economic difficulties, you can think of selling it and moving in a smaller
apartment. As renter, what happens if you're already in difficulty and can't
afford to pay the actual rent?

I hate much everything of the "rental" services: you can access something but
you can't own it. What happens if in 10 years I want exactly access that thing
again? Will it be there? I'm sure it won't and there are tons of examples
already (See: Disney content flying away from Netflix, Music disappearing from
Spotify due to copyright/labels, Games not available anymore on Steam due
geolocalization, etc. etc.)

~~~
milkytron
>I hate much everything of the "rental" services: you can access something but
you can't own it.

Universities in the US are doing this with course material now. I had to pay
for a subscription service to access my assignments, so that my professors
didn't have to review anything. I had to pay for the service to get credit for
that portion of the class, and then all my work in that service vanished after
the semester ended. No more access to the work I had done despite having
classes the next semester that I would need that work to reference. The
professor didn't pay a dime, and 100 students had to pay the cost so that the
professor didn't have to review our work. Involuntary consumerism at its
finest.

I started a petition, and tried arguing with the admins of the school to see
if we could have these services banned or at least paid for by the professor.

They asked "How is this different than buying a book you need?" Answer is
obvious, books don't disappear after the semester, they can be found in the
library if you can't afford them, and they don't do the professors' job.

They asked "Well you can afford tuition, can't you afford the subscription?"
No, I can't afford tuition, now you want more?

At the end of the day, I went back and forth with them, and they wouldn't
budge. And I could tell it was really tearing their moral fabric, but no one
in power wanted to budge because $$$$$

------
parski
I'm paying less for my 240m² house that I own than I did when I when I was
renting a 70m² apartment a year ago. I live in a better neighborhood with
three times the space and with every monthly payment I'm building my net
worth. I take ownership of my home and learn skills to maintain and repair it.
I run around naked with really loud music at night and it's nobody's business
but mine. Feels great. Also free parking and I'm growing food that I eat.
Neat. There is no doubt that owning my home is a lot better for me than
renting, both economically and living standard wise.

As for the server: excluding third party physical access is a major security
feature.

~~~
joelx
I should have clarified that this applies to the US.

------
esotericn
Hi Joel.

I'm your landlord, and I'm selling the house. You know, cause like, it's mine.
I want you out next month.

Yeah, I'll take the stability of buying, thanks.

The server comparison is disingenuous because migrating data is essentially
trivial and has almost no emotional impact compared to moving home.

I mean, it'd be brilliant if I could rsync my cabinets.

------
waiseristy
So, some ants, a money pit, and the HVAC acting up. Sounds like the author
just doesn't like regular maintenance of a house? I wonder if they also get
angry with their car. You have to change the oil twice a year! What an
inconvenience

~~~
The_Amp_Walrus
You can also make the same argument for owning a car as well. After
registration, mandatory insurance, petrol and maintenance, it's not clear that
owning a car is a financially sound decision for me, personally.

I've run the numbers before and the cost of owning is pretty close to just
catching an Uber every time I would otherwise drive, given I live an hour's
walk from my city's center.

The only big benefit I get out of it is that I can drop everything and go on a
camping / skiing trip several times a year. I certainly wouldn't buy a car now
if I didn't own one, and if I could easily rent a car for outdoor trips, then
I wouldn't have a reason to own one at all.

~~~
esotericn
The problem with reducing everything to whether it's a 'financially sound'
decision is that the ultimate endpoint of that is that you live in 5sqm in
SF/NYC/London/wherever, or a van in the Google car park, and stash it all away
until you're 40 or whatever, because that's the Paperclip Maximizer optimal-
strategy.

Ultimately it doesn't matter _that much_. You're going to get old, you're
going to lose your health eventually, and then you're gonna die.

I used to think that way, the effects were long-term great (I have a good
amount of savings now), but I recognise that there really was no need to be
quite so extreme about it.

~~~
perl4ever
"Ultimately it doesn't matter _that much_. You're going to get old, you're
going to lose your health eventually, and then you're gonna die."

Sure, but probably not at 40, so you've kind of refuted yourself. Speaking as
someone who flipped from renter to homeowner at 42.

Saving up for 20 years in an index fund and then buying as much house as you
can pay for in cash seems like a reasonable plan to me, if you make the sort
of money people on HN claim to.

~~~
esotericn
If that's what you want, that's excellent!

But perhaps it doesn't make 'financial sense' to buy the house after those 20
years, right, because you'd be better off just holding the money in index
funds (or at least you'd be better off treating the home as an investment and
not actually developing an emotional attachment because then you'll never sell
it).

What I'm saying is - you have to spend money eventually. Very few people are
in a situation in which they can just stash away 10M, spend 1M of it, and have
the majority of their funds exist as investment money, and thus act in this
sort of 'financially optimal' way.

Unless they want to live an austere life - which again, is fine! But it's not
literally the only way to live.

~~~
perl4ever
I'm talking about saving, say, $150K over 20 years. Not $10M.

------
prepend
This person has owned a home for a year. Ve has experience and obviously an
authority on this subject.

Seriously though, servers do not appreciate in value. If they did and were
scarce it would make a lot more sense to run than cloud out.

There are downsides to home ownership and significant risks, but I think it’s
the most tangible path to wealth for the middle class. Not everyone is fit for
home ownership as they move or value flexibility, but for those who can plan
and own a home in thirty years it zeros out for the costs of maintenance,
taxes, etc. It’s not quite like getting a refund check back for thirty years
of rent, but it’s similar.

~~~
joelx
The fact that homes appreciate and value is a bug in our system. If we allowed
homes to be built freely and with less regulation, then old homes that
actually decline in value compared to new homes.

~~~
PascLeRasc
I agreed with your article and other comments here, but this is a bad take.
There's no need for senseless tearing down and rebuilding, old homes are
perfectly fine and often better-built than modern ones. Take a look at the
mid-rise apartment building, I'm sure you have several wherever you live:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-
ameri...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-
new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same)

~~~
joelx
Good point, I didn't think this comment through as well as I should have.

------
peapicker
Not buying it. I’m on the backend. My house is paid off in 18 months. Even
with my average 5-7k per year of maintenance I’m paying a lot less than a
crappy two bedroom rental in my top20 metro area on the US and my property is
already worth triple+ my initial cost for a reasonable 1800 sq ft plus
basement. I did get a place that was waaaay less than banks wanted to qualify
me for because I understand the cost of maintenance. A pool would be an
albatross around my neck for instance - never would buy a place with one bc of
the maintenance.

------
ksksksss
While owning is always combined with upkeep, renting is always taking money
out of your pocket and putting it into somebody else's. At least in this
economy (Western Europe) it's not exactly considered wise to never buy
property, and makes sense in the long term for very few.

And to further the analogy of server's, pay a worker to do the upkeep if you
can and would rather spend your time otherwise. There are people who'll take
care of your bugs, crumbling infrastructure and beautification needs for a
small token.

This really reads a rather petty complaint.

~~~
perl4ever
"renting is always taking money out of your pocket and putting it into
somebody else's."

If you're paying for a mortgage, then what difference does it make if it's
_your_ mortgage or your _landlord 's_ mortgage? The obvious difference it
makes is whether you're on the hook if the value of the property goes down,
which is an argument against owning.

Owning makes sense if you can avoid borrowing, but that means saving for many
years and spending a fraction of what most people do.

------
jd751
10 stories apartments.

Instead of visiting Tokyo go visit Moscow or any capital from the previous
eastern european communist countries. See how that worked out for the rich and
poor.

You compare housing with data. Devaluation of humans to the point where you
believe they can be compared to just 0s and 1s is whats wrong with your
article. But i guess you still think this is just a statistic. Someone else
did too.

------
Thorentis
I recognise the problems with home ownership, and agree that affordable rent
may even be the answer for some people that don't want that responsibility,
but the solution of "10 storey buildings" just isn't the answer.

Case in point: the Sydney apartment building disaster. Multiple apartment
buildings with problems, losing tons of money by having to move out of
cracking/leaking/structurally unsound buildings. And almost no support or
compensation coming their way.

Unfortunately, strata based housing many times results in developers extorting
"owners" with fees, little to no maintenance (or just the bare minimum),
cutting corners on building, and so on. At least with home ownership you know
exactly what you need to do, and if it doesn't get done then it's your own
fault. Even renting a house is better, because you can very clearly see if
things are wrong. An apartment building is harder to get a clear overall
picture of. Walls sinking? Foundations cracking? Ceilings dipping? Roof
leaking? You can usually only see some of these issues in any given apartment
depending on what floor you're on, how big your apartment is, etc.

~~~
maxander
If you you want “affordable rents,” you have two options; high density or long
commutes. And high density means large buildings. There’s just geometrically
no way to supply a SF/NYC/Boston level city primarily through detached homes.

It’s on cities to solve the problems you describe, usually through housing
inspection and tenant rights law.

------
stzup7
Owning your home is an long term insurance. If your source of income dries up,
you'll still have a home.

~~~
marssaxman
How's that going to work? You still have to pay your mortgage and property
tax.

~~~
perl4ever
Well, if your mortgage is paid off or you saved for 20 or 30 years in the
first place.

------
gaspoweredcat
my big issue is that it ties you to somewhere, if i want to leave where i am i
can just give my landlord the appropriate notice and leave, if i owned where i
live i then have to find someone to buy my house before i can leave, which
could take weeks or even months

the problem with your "build more homes to crash the price 80%" is its a great
idea for those who dont have houses already, but for those that do it means
enormous losses on their original investments, now do you think the people
making the decisions on those sorts of things rent or own? something tells me
they own and wouldnt be too keen on losing 80% of their investment

thats also why it does work in japan, unlike here property is not an
investment its something to live/work in for as long as it lasts, as such
prices only go one way, down, over the course of 20-30 years the value of most
japanese houses falls to zero and they are knocked down and rebuilt

~~~
flukus
> my big issue is that it ties you to somewhere

This is also a benefit depending on your perspective. It makes you more a part
of the community because your long term best interests align. It's easier to
keep long term friends when seeing each other doesn't become an inconvenience.
I know some retired people that have lived in my (gentrifying) area most of
their lives but are now struggling to keep up with ever increasing rents, to
them being tied somewhere by owning property would be a godsend.

> the problem with your "build more homes to crash the price 80%" is its a
> great idea for those who dont have houses already, but for those that do it
> means enormous losses on their original investments

Most home owners treat their property as a home first and an investment
second, if at all. Even if it's used as an investment it will usually be
invested in their next home. Getting rid of property speculators would be
great though.

> thats also why it does work in japan

Japan seems to have some issues (Hikikomori) that may be exasperated by this
lack of permanence. Paying ever increasing rent and/or moving when I'm retired
instead of $0 to live out my days in peace doesn't sound appealing.

~~~
gaspoweredcat
its all personal preference at the end of the day, i can honestly say ive
never been part of a "community" hell its rare ive even known my next door
neighbours names nor do i have a desire to. as for long term friend ive known
most of mine for upwards of 2 decades, we havent lost touch so far and i dont
see it happening in future

i also have no plans to retire, if i stop working ill become incredibly bored
incredibly fast, im sure its a goal for those with partners etc or things
theyve held off doing but not me, if ive wanted to do something i generally do
it there and then and my emotional and social issues mean that i have no
interest in having a family or partner, i have my hobbies and my work which is
pretty much all i need

while not to the extremes of japans hikikomori we have a significant number of
people in their 20s and 30s still living with their parents here, but these
arent jobless shut-ins theyre just regular people, the reasons for it are
many, some simply cant afford to live alone and why rent a room in a shared
house with a bunch of strangers when you can rent one with people you know? i
suspect another reason is that single accommodation like one bed flats etc is
not that common here so if you do rent alone youre likely renting a 2 bed
house, which can feel rather dull and empty if youre living alone

im also aware that i have a serious lack of responsibility, were i to own a
place id have access to significant lines of credit and id end up doing
something stupid and get it repossessed.

------
leommoore
The essential difference is that the location of your server matters a lot
less than where you are located.

Maybe you have a job that you can work remotely and never have to travel but
there is more to life than work. Your neighbours, friends, kids, schools and
your favourite coffee shop are part of who you are.

