Last I looked into the difference, (in my area) if you planned to stay longer than three years, owning was the cheaper option. Less than that you’d be better off renting. Assuming no big house repairs of course, and no crazy house value changes.
Of course it’s exploitative, that isn’t a question. The entire purpose of rent is to exploit. The down voters are people who recognize that it’s complete nonsense to suggest housing rental could ever not be exploitative.
It can be exploitative, but it’s not automatically so. Both parties benefit from the agreement in different ways.
Last I looked into the difference, (in my area) if you planned to stay longer than three years, owning was the cheaper option. Less than that you’d be better off renting. Assuming no big house repairs of course, and no crazy house value changes.
I don’t get how this above conversation isn’t just /thread.
7 people who downvoted, care to explain? Genuinely curious what your take is.
Of course it’s exploitative, that isn’t a question. The entire purpose of rent is to exploit. The down voters are people who recognize that it’s complete nonsense to suggest housing rental could ever not be exploitative.
I don’t mean to be shocking, but this feels very much like “she orgasmed when I molested her”.
The other option is homelessness. You rent at the barrel of a gun. How could you possibly call that consent?