On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:51:53 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 6/11/2013 1:18 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> I have to laugh at this.  "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20
>>> years"
>>
>> A 20 year payback time is no big deal to me, the house won't pay for itself
>> compared to renting for a similar timeframe either, but I see it is very worth it.
>
> Rents have lagged significantly behind the cost of buying for some time, now (because people buy homes for speculating on real estate price increases). This means you are financially better off renting.

Define financially better off :)

And this is not even a fair conversation, because there are so many variables to consider.

-Steve

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:51:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Owning a home has lots of nice advantages, but saving money isn't reliably one of them.

I agreed with you until last year, but the very low mortgage interest rates and fitting in principle prepayments into my budget tipped me toward the other side. (Then the landlord jacking up the rent and giving me a bad attitude on a short notice inspection pushed me into calling the bank immediately - this is the biggest of the other advantages IMO, not having to deal with a landlord anymore!)

But, like with a lot of things, there's no substitute for doing your own math before making a decision.

On 6/11/2013 1:47 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:47:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Actually, parts for old cars are a lot cheaper than for new ones! But I think
>> that's an anomaly.
>
> I guess it totally depends on where you live. :)

In the US.

For example, my daily driver is an '89 Bronco II. I can get a new radiator for $20, brake calipers for $80, etc. It's amazing how cheap it is to keep that old heap running in top condition.

Just try doing a brake job on a newer car. Ghastly prices.

For older cars, like my '72 Dodge, a vast industry has sprung up to manufacture replacement parts, from original to much, much improved ones. It's really marvelous.

It is interesting how my old cars are far, far cheaper to keep running than even regular maintenance on a newish one.

On 6/11/2013 2:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Define financially better off :)

You have mo' moolah. Is their any other definition?


> And this is not even a fair conversation, because there are so many variables to
> consider.

I'd like to pop that default conception that buying is financially better than renting. It's only true if real estate values appreciate faster than inflation plus taxes plus real estate commissions, which is hardly a sure thing.

(A lot of people overlook property taxes and capital gains taxes when they make these calculations. I know one guy who cashed in his stock options and bought a house with the proceeds, only to be forced to sell it a year later because he couldn't pay the upkeep and taxes on his salary.)

I can't even recall anyone remembering that selling a house costs you a 6% commission to the real estate agent. Poof! There goes a big chunk of your profits right off the top.

Housing prices have to go up a lot to counter all that.

On 6/11/2013 2:20 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:51:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Owning a home has lots of nice advantages, but saving money isn't reliably one
>> of them.
>
> I agreed with you until last year, but the very low mortgage interest rates and
> fitting in principle prepayments into my budget tipped me toward the other side.
> (Then the landlord jacking up the rent and giving me a bad attitude on a short
> notice inspection pushed me into calling the bank immediately - this is the
> biggest of the other advantages IMO, not having to deal with a landlord anymore!)
>
> But, like with a lot of things, there's no substitute for doing your own math
> before making a decision.

Yes, not having to deal with a landlord is one of the nice perques. On the other hand, there's another landlord you can't get away from - the property tax people and the zoning people and the permit people. You never really own it. If there's an HOA, better read those covenants very, very carefully first.

I own the house I live in, I find it worthwhile for me. But I'm not under any delusion that it's some great financial investment. I've previously owned 4 houses, and lost money on two of them (one of them pretty badly). If I sold my current one today, I'd lose a nice chunk on it.

Renting can be nice. For example, if your life circumstances change, or you just want a change of scenery, you can just walk away from it.

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:54:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:44:35 -0400, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not ready to roll out as the energy of the future, but in certain circumstances it's a good deal for an individual.
>
> It's not a good deal for the taxpayers who have to subsidize it to make it a good deal for the individual.  Would you buy it if it was full price?
>
> -Steve

Probably not. However, the subsidies have done a great deal to get the technology real-world testing in a variety of settings, as well as providing cash-flow for practical R+D, especially with regards to more down to earth practicalities. I would say it is - at the very least - not a complete waste of money for the tax-payer.

P.S. I'm not buying it at all, my parents did as it represented a much better investment than any bank accounts. In particular, the energy companies pay quite a high price to buy the spare energy.

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 21:29:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I can't even recall anyone remembering that selling a house costs you a 6% commission to the real estate agent. Poof! There goes a big chunk of your profits right off the top.

This is a peeve of mine. I don't see my house as a financial asset, that is I don't see it as something to sell for cash. It's value to me is entirely derived from me living inside it.

I saw a politician, President Obama I think, recently say "home values are on the rise, which gives more wealth to the middle class".... but is that really the case? The market value is only transformed into cash by a) loans, which aren't a net gain (excepting a lucky investment) because you have to pay them back or b) selling it.

...and if you sell it, unless you own multiple houses, you're now homeless. And housing prices are up, so getting a new house will erase the gains you got from selling the old house! So I don't think raising property values makes me wealthier at all.

But I do feel the house is worth it financially because it erases an ongoing cost down the road. The sum of my taxes and homeowner's insurance are about 1/3 what I was paying in rent, so after the house is paid off, it is like erasing eight rent payments a year. It'll still take time for that to exceed the mortgage cost, but it eventually will, and when that happens, the house could have a $0 market value and that wouldn't matter to me because it still does what I need it to do.

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 21:29:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/11/2013 2:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Define financially better off :)
>
> You have mo' moolah. Is their any other definition?
>
>
>> And this is not even a fair conversation, because there are so many variables to
>> consider.
>
> I'd like to pop that default conception that buying is financially better than renting. It's only true if real estate values appreciate faster than inflation plus taxes plus real estate commissions, which is hardly a sure thing.
>
> (A lot of people overlook property taxes and capital gains taxes when they make these calculations. I know one guy who cashed in his stock options and bought a house with the proceeds, only to be forced to sell it a year later because he couldn't pay the upkeep and taxes on his salary.)
>
> I can't even recall anyone remembering that selling a house costs you a 6% commission to the real estate agent. Poof! There goes a big chunk of your profits right off the top.
>
> Housing prices have to go up a lot to counter all that.

In my experiences renting in the UK, a lot depends on the local conditions.

For example, low quality housing situated near a university is a fantastic investment as a landlord: There is very little domestic demand for those properties as the academics don't want them and nor do the better paid admin staff, so the prices stay low. However, the rental demand is intense,  inexperienced and inflexible, keeping rents very high.

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:02:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/11/2013 12:21 PM, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>>> It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years!
>>
>> Source? There's not much that wears out in a photovoltaic AFAIK. The associated
>> electrical components may break however, especially on some of the more complex
>> setups.
>
> Don't have a source, I read it long ago. Note that none of the advertisements, brochures, etc., mention expected life of the PVs.
>
> I do know that the life of any semiconductor is measured as the integral of the heat it experiences. Heat causes the doping to migrate, and when it migrates far enough the part fails.
>
> PV panels can get pretty hot in direct sunlight.
>
> Heating/cooling cycling will also cause cracking.
>
> If you're considering a PV system, I'd ask serious questions about the useful life of the system, and what maintenance is required (at a minimum, they'll need the dirt and mold regularly cleaned off).
>
> Circuit boards, inverters, etc., also fail, and you'd need some assurance you can get replacement parts for 20 years.

A lot of the solar companies give great guarantees on the whole setup (assuming they don't go out of business of course). My parents have had theirs for ~5 years now with no problems at all, other than giving them a quick wipe once every few months and adjusting the angle for the seasons.
Admittedly, one has to consider that in the UK they very rarely get particularly hot. We also don't get particularly pronounced day/night temperature variation compared to some places.

There's probably some good data on the lifetimes somewhere.

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 21:21:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> For example, my daily driver is an '89 Bronco II.

Had to look that up on wikipedia. Yikes, don't corner too fast in that thing, we need you alive!