I find this article, 'In praise of renters' by Andrew Leigh curious for its obvious narrow focus on some of the downside of home ownership. This is not to say that he does not make a number of valid points; however, a list a mile long of advantages to the individual, the community, and the nation could also be made extolling the upside of home ownership. To me, what Andrew has done is bit like focusing on one of the downsides of building a hospital: a lot of people will die within its walls.

As just one example on the upside, the merits flowing from low turnover populations for suburbs and towns got no mention, and is it just me, or is Andrew's contention 'Another downside of home ownership is that having virtually all your wealth locked up in one piece of property is a risky investment strategy' contrary to the age long general success of the property market; that is, haven't we been taught, for valid reason, that, on average, one of the safest investments of all time is one's home?

Anyway, it seems to me that while many particulars in his article are valid, overall it's just a peculiar piece of gristly red herring.

I grew up in the same house most of my life, and I am well aware that my kids having been moved between cities for the first few years have very strong views about not moving now.

Owning a home is probably as much an emotional investment as financial. The sense of permanence is a solid foundation for raising a family. I have friends renting, who have been forced to move twice in the space of 4 years when the owners sold.

While I understand that economics dictates that renting is better, I feel that the other non tangible issues out weigh this and any politician who challenges this is in for a short career.

Typical tory a hole

Ignores the fact that moving sucks and takes people away from family and friends and familiar support networks. Ignores the fact moving house is up there in the top ten of stressful events in peoples lives. Only sees the dollar signs.
Ignores the fact that renters have no security and can be evicted at any time for any (or no) reason. Renters live constantly with the fear they could shortly become homeless. Renters cannot change or improve anything without protracted negotiations and why would they when it is all lost to the owner if they move. Renters have no freedom when it comes to decoration, gardens, repairs, renovation and improvement or indeed who stays etc. Landlords dont fix the small maintenance problems since they arent there to see them and dont care as long as the rent keeps rolling in.

He seems to think workers should be willing to move wherever the boss tells them to. Like some sort of slaves who have no mind or desires of their own. Its all about economic "efficiency' and bugger the fact that workers are real people who can think for themselves and may not want to move where the "work" is. Tossers like this think we should all bow down to them and show them blind obedience. That we should respect them as our masters and ignore their gross failings and the regularity of their errors.

So tell us how many Chinese own their own home? Whats the Chinese unemployment rate? I think you will find the answers put somewhat of a dent in your highly selective and misleading use of the statistics.

Overall an appalling essay designed to mislead and annoy. If it was a post i would accuse it of trolling. Sadly this is the way the right wing rulers would like all of us to live. As feudal subjects paying them a large proportion of the wages they so kindly allow us to earn for the privilege of existing, while they live in luxury on the backs of us peasants. F ing parasites.

Renters are suCkers, one under;-suckers!!

If you have to be insulting-do it properly!

There is nothing worse than than a religious fella without a spell-checker....

YOU HEARD ME!!

1 server error.

The author of the thread is an economist, lawyer and bureaucrat, a statistical analysis of the verifiable outcome for people of these qualities in public policy, would show a 99% failure rate.

The need to keep people renting is so corporate social dictatorships can manipulate the population, moving it where it wants,purely for for corporate profit growth. Home owners stay in area's of unemployment, supporting local business and in most cases create more small business. It also allows people to become creative with their living environment, something you can't do in rented property, except superficially and mostly only within 4 walls.

Renters get no return for their input into housing, are subject to non renewal of lease, increasing rents, eviction and intrusion by owners. Whilst home owners/buyers are guaranteed a return, even if at a slight lose. Psychologically, stability, security and feelings of ownership are all essential for happy families communities and a healthy working and social environment. What Poor old Andrew Leighs is advocating, only destroys communities as people leave for financial gain, rather than social a family stability. He certainly doesn't have any idea of real life outside his elitist comfort zone.

His co-authored book,“Prince's New Clothes: Why Do Australians Dislike Their Politicians?” is a great read, if you like the comedy of elitists trying to fathom out something they have no idea of, reality and putting forward ideas which eminently support they are clueless. I wonder how many rentable investment properties the author has an interest in.

You know; this is interesting.

Either it is a 'Tory' style plot by this author. OR:

Could it be that some of you home owners are a tad snobby? It comes across strongly that most of you see renters as a spit short of vagrants!

You hold your view, I'll hold mine.

I was pleased to see an article that put up the merits of renting, whatever the motivation. It is nice to see someone discussing it as a very viable option.

(Btw: there are many thousands of renters like me who are happily AND securely ensconced in their dwellings, and who have excellent relationships with landlords who fix problems when they occur).