| ▲ | fvrghl a day ago | |
If you had invested the 83k in the S&P500, you'd be slightly ahead I think if you include maintenance and property taxes. https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/stocks/s-p-500/1997?amount=... | ||
| ▲ | munksbeer 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
What about if you had 8k as a deposit only, so you either invest in S&P500 and rent instead, or put the deposit on a house and repay the mortgage? That's the more equivalent scenario. | ||
| ▲ | bobbiechen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
If you count the S&P 500, you should also count 20+ years of rent, right? | ||
| ▲ | myvoiceismypass 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Most people are putting up 5-20% of the purchase price, so closer to ~16k -> ~225k after 28 years. | ||
| ▲ | annodomini2019 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |
You don't get to live in the S&P500. Also don't really get the point of this response. Both just prove assets are wildly out of reach for young people now compared to then. | ||