I see that some are calculating in transportation costs with FT, but not with house ownership. The cost of a garage is "transportation" related whether it is attached or detached, and the costs of commuting for services -- much less employment -- is lengthened by the need for car, garage and the amount of land necessary to build for such
, thus it's distance only to be covered by a car. And increase in mortgage costs, etc. An expensive
form of isolation. Public transportation access makes moot this point.
The only comparison that makes sense for this thread, IMO, is between renting a home (be it single or multi-family) and FT in an RV. Home ownership also implies equity
which no longer exists in this country ($6-trillion worth ruined by Wall Street with the result of fewer Americans having home equity than at any time since the Great Depression; also known as there is no more middle class
), thus a comparison comes down to the cost of living on an annual basis for all
The fixed rented
abode will likely always win out when one plans to be car-less and use bikes and public transportation in city/state with great services (also disappearing as Michael Hudson
points out: public infrastructure built with property tax is now captured/financialized by Wall Street engineering the sell-off of the public domain as bondholder payments trumps the citizenry
; a form of madness) but the rise of fuel prices (consequently all other prices) makes all choices more expensive. There is no place to hide. But those trapped in houses they cannot sell are at a real, a true
, disadvantage for labor mobility in the event local, state, regional or personal circumstances change. Being able to leave is everything.
Home ownership was always more expensive than renting. The gamble was that "value" would keep pace with increased costs, and ensure a payout to the owners, even if not a true profit. Enough, at least, to move on to another living situation with ready cash. With the retirement of Baby Boomers expected to see the largest sell-off of houses long-term this society has ever seen over a twenty year period
, genuine equity has no real meaning (outside of the top 1% of income earners). House prices are not going to "recover" until 2030 at least. Sell while there are still buyers -- unless already in the ideal location -- if one is already in contemplation of this, IMO.
FT means more than just a few years of "retirement" (another obsolete concept limited to the mid and late 20th century) as it allows one to go where one wants, or where one is needed. As needed. From that perspective Paula's points about RV time share
is outstanding. A minimal investment with long-term cheap annual costs. Predictable.
We can see the A/S-only parks in other threads. One idea. Another is something similar where storage units and long-lease pads (with small buildings attached) generate income to an owner group (that change as shares). Group purchases, maybe even of energy-sufficiency such as a Bloom Box or from Clear Water
to build re-sale value while holding costs predictable (see also "Biogas"). Stable, predictable value and costs.
Worldwide, 40 cities -- megaregions --
account for two-thirds of economic activity and 85% of economic innovation. In the U.S. this is mirrored by ten  regions
"Home" needs to be a place that:
A] Allows mobility for economic adaptation; or,
B] Generates income (or is sufficiently offsetting of same)
The dollars and cents line themselves up more easily if one is determined to do everything by one's self, or
wishes to find others of like mind to address needs currently ignored (and parasitized) by a system no longer working. A blend of both is likely. An RV "association" can have different meaning with new-er conceptual lenses.
But misunderstandings, rather, misconceptions
about transportation costs must be more clearly understood first. A Class B license and a fifteen-passenger van may be the best TV around in this way of looking at it: income generating and/or income-offsetting . . . .