Stigma against people who rent?

I have never run into this stigma and I wouldn't give a monkey's if I did.  I have no interest in buying a place right now or in the next few years. 

People can judge and be silly for any number of things.  If it isn't about renting it would be about something else.  I don't really have the time for it either way.

And it is worth mentioning that depending on the market, renting (even in the long run) can be cheaper than buying.  So people can embrace that renting is sometimes the smarter option.   

Housing is severely over-priced now in pretty much all of the western world. And this is not a moral judgment.

Within the next two years we will see a huge downward correction, probably along the lines of 50% in most places. London will hold out a bit longer. Anyone having purchased in the last 10 years will be upside down for quite some time, if not permanently.

Of course while this may sound good, it means some pretty rough financial times as so much of the economy is based on housing.

If you can sell now (nobody is buying though) do it. If you are looking to buy, wait three years, try and put together the huge deposits required and buy at half the price.

Governments have put a lot into trying to keep the bubble inflated but it will pop, they always, always do.

I have never run into this stigma and I wouldn't give a monkey's if I did. 

I think the issue is about how people are treated when they are stigmatised. If they receive worse service, get worse deals, etc.

I don't think that people should be  judged by what they wear, but I know that my style of clothing will affect how other people treat me, so I dress with that in mind.

I think the issue is about how people are treated when they are stigmatised. If they receive worse service, get worse deals, etc.

I don't think that people should be  judged by what they wear, but I know that my style of clothing will affect how other people treat me, so I dress with that in mind.

It isn't a service persons place to judge me on my home ownership and if they did, I wouldn't use them.  Though if I wasn't the owner, it wouldn't actually affect me if they gave me a bad deal so it probably wouldn't really matter to me anyway.   

I am trying to think of a situation where it would actually affect me and I just can't.  Otherwise, if people are just making catty comments, who cares!

To me that is very different than dressing well at work to project professionalism.  And if it isn't work, then yeah, I dress how I like!

I don't think there is the same stigma with renting as there is in the US.  Plus saying you rent your house is a great way to instantly get rid of telemarketers trying to sell new kitchens or windows.

This is the only thing I could think of where you'd be treated differently if you rented rather than owned a home.  Can't say this is a bad thing though.  

I know people who rent and who own (well, mortgage) and have in my life both rented and owned and have never been aware of me or them being treated differently (other than by double glazing salesmen)

Tremula, that's surprising you have observed that about the working class as they probably were one of the lowest home owning groups before the great council property sell off, and probably still are.  I'd not be surprised if middle England ("Pardonia" and slightly beyond) had that opinion.  I've not encountered it at all in the working class, and while some aspire to own their own homes if they don't already, it seems less about snobbery and more about being secure or those stupid property shows which have finally seemed to go away a bit.  Maybe I just haven't met any "respectable" ones? I've met lower middle class/white collar workers with that attitude, but not working class.

It depends what you mean by "working class". I used the phrase "respectable working class" deliberately. I meant it to refer to that stratum which seeks to become bourgeois, to leave behind inner-city cloth-cap and factory-job origins and move towards a suburban, house-owning, office-job milieu. Upper working class might be an equally apt label. Margaret Stacey distinguished three strata: "Respectable working class", "ordinary working class" and "rough working class". See her "Tradition And Change: A Study Of Banbury" (1960). I think that maybe the respectable layer is in the process of absorbtion into the lower middle class layer you call "Pardonia".

Hi all

Very interesting question and responses!

If any of you have or do read the property investing type websites and forums you'll notice a bit of a trend for the UK, the West and then recently, over the last decade or so the inclusion of the rest of the world.

The 'kick start' to all of this property type hype over the last few years was the availability of more finance and financial options and products. In conjunction to that, has been the changes politically which had had an effect on many peoples outlooks for longer term.

A few generations ago, it was common to have a job for life, and pass the family home to kids. That essentially hasn't changed and is a common long term want for many people nowadays - that they have an Asset to which to give thier kids. With the constant change in the Political and Society landscape, jobs are now no longer for life, and people can and do change in their careers and move from place to place and country to country! Renting when viewed without the 'Stigma' is definitley advantageous to those who change careers - not needing to be tied down etc.

Nowadays, for the vast majority of the UK population, there is less and less to have as an Asset to pass onto their kids - with less disposable income, and more of wages/salary being spent on everyday basics, it's fuelled the UK's fever pitch about buying a house rather than renting. The 'skewed' society level view of 'must own, don't rent' has clouded many people's perceptions and has definitley given rise to the 'stigma' mentioned here. Although I've never really noticed any 'looking down noses' type responses, on the whole I know that does indeed happen. With the throwing of money around like water over the last decade or so, many people thought of home ownership would be a one way ticket to value increases and frequently borrowed much more than their realistic incomes allowed - the feel good factor in terms of 'oh I'll buy now and pay later' in most aspects of UK consumers (and other Western Countries!) purchases, both luxury and essential items followed to house purchases. We all know what's now happened!

In terms of Renting, many of course did rent in order to go work in new towns or places - purchasing wasn't an option, usually down to the insane levels of UK property prices. Politically, with much less to look forward to in terms of wealth creation, the UK's pension crisis, the sale of the gold reserves, the North Sea oilfields in the Twilight of their productivity etc more and more people jumped onto buying a house. With many new immigrants to rent to, as well as domestic residents unable to afford asking prices, the rental market looks good in that respect - I do this myself with my own property which I rent out. From a pure business point of view, with the trend in the UK of even the cheapest properties in the vast areas of the country being around 4-6 times average Salaries, renting to those who can't afford to buy is good to do and achieve. The next part of the puzzle is the whole Supply Vs Demand aspect as well as the geographic issue of living in such a tiny island with less room to build. The economic indicators show that less availability will equal higher prices - and that's exactly what we have in the UK.

Looking further afield, in other countries things are the opposite - Go to Germany, Berlin for instance and its the other way around, the vast majority of people rent their living arrangements and no one bats an eyelid. There is much less of a 'you rent' stigma that we have in the UK. Looking to the USA, I seem to see many properties that are rented and meet the people who do, and so far haven't' experienced the same level of stigma. Sure, it also exists in the USA to 'buy a property' similar to what we have here, except availability of housing stock is much more accessible to many more of the population. Granted, it won't be in a super area, however the option is still viable, even during the 'boom' years, although due to the size of the US, some places were just as unreachable as here in pretty much all parts of the UK.

I disagree with the poster who predicts house prices 'will' come down by 50%, although the experts seem to suggest that's what 'should' happen, in reality I doubt it would, as many other economic cogs are interconnected, if that were to happen, the UK would pretty much be finished. In amongst that, a facilitator to that would be the building of a LOT of new homes and places to live - we just don't have the room - the Greenbelt land required would impact the farmers and environmentalists, and of course The British are well known for resistance to 'change'. Added to that, there is a cultural resistance to building higher, which would from a scientific view would really help and work, but we rarely get above 3 stories in residential dwellings, and if some of the new builds do, they'll be a max of perhaps 10 stories?! The only other way would be for Salaries to be bumped up to like an average of perhaps £40-50K in order to be able to afford say a 2bedroom  flat, or to around £60-75K in order to afford the average house price of about £180K (which i know varies alot!) - realistically, that just isn't going to happen either!

So, it'll be interesting to actually see what happens in terms of house prices, rentals within this focus and the various political and financial and environmental impacts I mention above.

Perhaps the 'stigma' will disappear - I hope so, but it'll more than lilely just transfer itself to another asapect somewhere !

Cheers, DtM! West London & Slough UK

Denis your arguments are rational, but markets aren't. They are driven by fear and greed.

First of all, interest rates cannot be held low forever. They will rise.

Financial institutions are not going to, nor are they capable of, nor inclined to, loan like they did four years ago. Nor should they, apparently...

Austerity will begin to bite.

Growth pressure are not homogeneous throughout the UK - the South East distorts national trends. 

Prices, on any good or service, are based solely on the ability and the inclination of the consumer, both of which are weakened and not improving.

Bubbles pop.

Within the next two years we will see a huge downward correction, probably along the lines of 50% in most places. London will hold out a bit longer. Anyone having purchased in the last 10 years will be upside down for quite some time, if not permanently.

Of course while this may sound good, it means some pretty rough financial times as so much of the economy is based on housing.

If you can sell now (nobody is buying though) do it. If you are looking to buy, wait three years, try and put together the huge deposits required and buy at half the price.

Do you have any sources that support this, or is it purely your opinion?

Hiya

Yes, I guess the worst view of what 'could' happen, is exactly that, house prices will come down by 50%. And yes, the markets are indeed driven by fear and to an extent, greed, but that means via supply and demand and how sought after something may be in terms to make a profit etc.

Theoretically, what you say indeed could happen, however that would leave the only viable to many, owning an Asset severely value reduced. There is nothing to replace that wealth on such a scale to help prop the country up. The last big 'cash cow' for the UK was the North Sea oil fields, and they are now in their twilight in productive capacity. The UK is or has, moved to a Service orientated wealth generator.

No one knows exactly what 'will' happen, the current government trying to dig us out of the mess left by the previous labour government. If things got out of control in terms of the economy and the UK is seen as still floundering on the world stage in paying back it's debts, the country will not survive as we know it, and would probably be put down quite a few pegs and be on the level perhaps just outside of the G20.

If the UK manages it's debts, and is seen to be positive on the world stage, it'll encourage growth and investment from the much much bigger and richer G8 countries which will help in keeping us in the G20. What's plainly clear is that the UK cannot borrow in the long term in order to try and 'pretend' its on the same levels as the G8 countries and indeed the BRIC nations. The UK is now realising it's 'true' place in the worlds richest nations/eating some humble pie - the hope being, that we do that long enough for confidence to return and be used in the right way in order to keep the country at what we'd like it to be.

Cheers, DtM! West London & Slough UK!

I don't understand why it's considered a good thing to buy a house as an investment.  Shouldn't it just be a place to live?  Maybe we need to completely rethink our attitude to home owership.  Shelter is a basic human need, there's really no excuse for a developed country that prices basic needs out of the average person's budget.

I think owning your own home has been "The American Dream" since the 1950's, and maybe it's a similar thing in the UK?  However, I have never bought into most of the American dream my whole life and have preferred to be more of a free spirit with no ties to anything that big.  I have always rented and because I lived in a major urban area where most if not many people rented (even upwardly mobile people in their 30's), I wasn't treated any worse than a homeowner. 

My father however, always thought it was odd (maybe even foolish) that I turned down his offer to help me buy a place.  But maybe it's a generational thing?  Back when my parents were young, "It was the done thing to get married, buy a house, and have kids" to quote one of the ladies I work with in the UK who is the same generation as my parents.  But things have changed.  Both financially as the above posts illustrate, and also lifestyle-wise.  People have more options now about the lifestyle they chose.  That wasn't really an option in the 50's and was seen as strange and on the fringe, I think....

I think it does depend on where you live in the US and in the UK.

I was getting my hair cut in Peterborough and the 24 year old hair cutter was questioning my renting.    

But no one I knew in Providence/Boston owned their own homes when I lived there, even those who could have "afforded" it.

But in general, houses at home are cheaper and when I moved to Western PA I could have BOUGHT a two bedroom house for a 350/mnth, but was only there for a year so I rented with 2 friends and it was 250/mnth each.

But then the area had limited rental opportunities and a large military base which raised the local rental costs.

But no one I knew in Providence/Boston owned their own homes when I lived there, even those who could have "afforded" it.

I think it also depends on age. Nearly all my friends in Providence owned.

I think it also depends on age. Nearly all my friends in Providence owned.

Yeah, at 37, all of my same-ish age friends own -- both in Boston and Providence.  Same for DC where I lived for 10 years.  I think I am the lone renter and have been for quite a while.  But I don't feel stigmatized at all.  I hate renting and paying someone else's mortgage and very much want to buy when we return to the US, but for now, renting is absolutely the best deal for us and that's all that matters.