Why could rental costs for apartments/houses rise while buying prices can go up and down?
I am from Australia, so my answer is based on my experience over here, however it should be similar for the USA. Generally, what determines both the price of houses/apartments and the rents for them is supply and demand. When there is high demand and low supply prices (or rents) generally go up. When there is low demand and high supply prices (or rents) usually go down. What can sometimes happen when house prices go down, is that the demand can drop but so can supply. As the prices drop, developers will make less money on building new houses, so stop building new houses. Other developers can go bankrupt. As less people (including investors) are buying houses, and more people (including investors) try to sell their existing houses, there will be more people looking to rent and less rental properties available to rent. This produces a perfect storm of high demand and low supply of rental properties, causing rents to rise strongly. When the property prices start to go up again as demand increases, there is a shortfall of new properties being built (due to the developers not building during the downturn). At this time developers start to build again but there is a lag time before the new houses can be completed. This lack of supply puts more pressure on both house prices and rents to go up further. Until equilibrium between supply and demand is realised or an oversupply of rental properties exists in the market, rents will continue to rise. At 5%, this means you expect rents to double every 14 years. I bought a condo style apartment 28 years ago, (sold a while back, by the way) and recently saw the going rate for rents has moved up from $525 to $750, after all this time. The rent hasn't increased four fold.  If rents appear to be too low compared to the cost of buying the house, people tend to prefer to rent. On the flip side, if the rent can cover a mortgage and then some, there's strong motivation to buy, if not by the renters, then by investors who seek a high return from renting those houses, thereby pushing the price up.  The price to rent ratio isn't fixed, it depends in part on interest rates, consumer sentiment, and banks willingness to lend. Similar to stock's P/E, there can be quite a range, but too far in either direction is a sign a correction is due. "Average rent rates will typically rise and fall, and are market-dependent just like real estate. In the short term, a collapse in housing like the one we saw in 2008 can induce a spike in rental costs as people walk away or get foreclosed on, and move back into apartments. That then tends to self-adjust, as the people who had been in the apartments find a deal on a foreclosed house and move out. However, one thing I've seen to be near-constant in the apartment business is that a landlord will offer you a deal to get in, then increase the rent on you from year to year until you get fed up and move. This is a big reason I didn't have the same address for two years in a row until I bought my house. The landlord is basically betting that you won't want to deal with the hassle of moving, and so will pay the higher rent rate, even if, when you do the math, it makes more sense to move even to maintain the same rent rate. Eventually though, you do get fed up, look around, find the next good deal, and move, ""resetting"" your rent rate. I have never, not once in my life, seen or heard of any landlord offering a drop in rent as a ""loyalty"" move to keep you from going somewhere else. It's considered part of the game; retailers will price match, but most service providers (landlords, but also utility providers) expect a large amount of ""churn"" in their customer base as people shop around. It averages out." They are two different animals. When you rent you are purchasing a service.  The landlord, as your service provider, has to make a profit, pay employees to do maintenance, and buy materials. The price of these things will increase with inflation, and that rolls into your rent price. Taxes also are passed to the tenant, and those tend to only go upward. Market forces of supply/demand will drive fluctuation of prices as well, as other posts have described. When you buy, you are purchasing just the asset - the home. This price will also be driven by supply/demand in the market, but don't try to compare it to buying a service. Cheers! Economically, you would say that purchased and rented real estate are not perfect substitutes--they are largely separate markets.  Only a few people are able to easily switch from one to the other and that choice is sticky--for example, once you buy a house, prices would have to rise a lot for it to be worth it to sell it and move into an apartment. In both markets there is a supply and demand curve, but the slope of the demand curve for houses to purchase is much steeper than the demand curve for rentals. The market for new housing fluctuates rapidly because it requires a large change in housing prices to change the number of people looking to buy a house.  Most decisions to buy a house are not driven by the state of the housing market.  This describes a supply/demand graph with a very steep demand curve.  Additionally, because of the leverage provided by mortgages, the demand for houses depends critically on relatively small changes in the interest rate and availability of loans.  Thus the steep demand curve shifts all over the place as borrowing conditions change. On the other hand, apartment prices are more stable because people easily move from one apartment to another and people living in their parent's basements easily move into apartments if prices change.  A small change in the price or quantity of rentals brings about reasonable response in quantity demanded.  This is the situation where the demand curve is shallow.  In addition, rentals are not tied to interest rates tightly, nor are they as strongly tied to economic conditions (in a recession, people avoid buying but renters continue to rent).
"I'd probably say ""buy"" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me." "Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of ""here is a nice house, live in it"". Which do you need more of?  If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)" People purchase homes and rent them instead of putting their money into other investment vehicles. This drives up property values and makes it more expensive to buy, which pushes more people into the rental market, making it more expensive to rent.  If you lower the returns people make on their rental homes via increased property taxes, some percentage of those individuals would sell their extra homes and put their money into more lucrative investments. That would increase the number of homes on the market, lower those homes' price, and take people out of the rental market as well. "And specifically regarding prices of housing, what factors drive prices in that regard? I mean, the houses are roughly the same... but almost 3 times as expensive. Rent, like so many things, is tied to supply and demand. On the demand side, rent is tied to income. People tend to buy as much house as they can afford, given that mortgage interest is deductible and public schools, financed through property tax, performs better in valuable neighborhoods. Raise the minimum wage and economists expect rents to go up accordingly. When employers and pensions offer COLA adjustments, it feeds into a price loop. During the past ten years, there was also some ""animal spirits"" / irrational behavior present; people feared that if they didn't buy now, home prices would outpace their growth in income. So even though it didn't make sense at the time, they bought because it would make even less sense later (if you assume prices only go up). There's also the whole California has nicer weather angle to explain why people move to SF or LA. On the supply side, it's all about housing stock. In your old town, you could find vacant lots or farmland in less than 5 minute's drive from anywhere. There's far less room for growth in say, the SF Bay area or NYC. There's also building codes that restrict the growth in housing stock. I'm told Boulder, CO is one such place. You would think that high prices would discourage people from moving or working there, but between the university and the defense contractors triangle, they seem to have an iron grip on the market. (Have you ever seen a cartoon where a character gets a huge bill at a restaurant, and their eyes shoot out of their eye sockets and they faint? Yeah... that's how I felt looking at some of the places around here...) Remember, restaurants have to cover the same rent problem you do. And they have higher minimum wages, and taxes, etc. Moreover, food has to be imported from miles away to feed the city, likely even from out of state. In California, there's also food regulations that in effect raise the prices. If people are footing those higher bills, I wouldn't be surprised if they're racking up debt in the process, and dodging the collectors calling about their Lexus, or taking out home equity loans to cover their lifestyle." Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up.   So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency. Yes, it's a buyer's market. If one is looking to buy a house, comparing the cost to rent vs own is a start. Buying a property to rent to a stranger is a different issue altogether, it's a business like any other, it takes time and has risk.  If today, one has a decent downpayment (20%) and plans to stay in the house for some time, buying may make economic sense. But it's never a no-brainer. One needs to understand that housing can go down as well as up, and also understand all the expenses of owning which aren't so obvious. Ever increasing property tax, repairs, etc. In the US market at least, there is long-term evidence that there's no strong correlation between interest rates and house prices. A less detailed Canadian study found that house prices tended to increase when rates increase.  One possible reason: interest rates can increase when the economy is doing well (needs less help), which is also the time when people feel more confident about buying. The are many reasons why Toronto condo prices may come down (such as oversupply), or may increase (empty nesters downsizing).  But, by itself, a small increase in interest rates appears, based on history, to be unlikely to lead to a substantial drop in prices over a short timescale. The real estate industry today is highly exploitative, you're right, but there are currently nothing stopping rents from rising. The major controls in place are are primarily supply constraints, which would lower prices if removed by allowing small, entrepreneurial developers and builders to create new housing more easily. There's also nothing to stop institutional investors from buying up all the housing right now, but those investors are generally not looking for high growth, they're looking for stable returns. Apartment buildings are viewed as similar to blue chip stock portfolios in that regard. Low growth, but also low risk.  The reason capitalism wouldn't lead to monopoly is that it takes work both to gain resources, and to retain them, and the most reliable way to retain them is to reinvest them in the economy. Investment permits new businesses to grow, and new industries to form. It's precisely because the economy isn't limited to a fixed size that wealth of one group doesn't require to poverty of others. New value creation is the core of the theory, and nearly every living person has at least some capital (their body and mind) to begin employing toward value creation.  I recommend reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson if you'd like to understand the theory behind why and how free market capitalism is supposed to work. "I don't buy the ""house prices will always increase due to the increased cost of raw materials"" argument. In a lot of countries you will find that the cost of (re)building a property is substantially lower than its perceived sale value. If it wasn't, there would be no incentive for developers to take the risk of buying the land and building houses on it. Say the cost of building the house is 50% of the sale price (which might already be generous). Materials probably account for half of the building cost so you've got 25% tail wagging 75% dog? I'd start to worry if people buy property as a get rich quick scheme, which seems to be what you're describing." The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different. One extremely important aspect that must be taken into consideration is the state of the housing market. If prices are rising it will probably be a false economy to delay your house purchase. Say you pay off a £5,000 student loan, thus delaying your house purchase another year you could well end up forking out an extra £10,000 on the mortgage due to the rise in house prices. Of course, if the housing market is falling then, without a doubt, pay off the student debt. "No, it can really not. Look at Detroit, which has lost a million residents over the past few decades. There is plenty of real estate which will not go for anything like it was sold. Other markets are very risky, like Florida, where speculators drive too much of the price for it to be stable. You have to be sure to buy on the downturn. A lot of price drops in real estate are masked because sellers just don't sell, so you don't really know how low the price is if you absolutely had to sell. In general, in most of America, anyway, you can expect Real Estate to keep up with inflation, but not do much better than that. It is the rental income or the leverage (if you buy with a mortgage) that makes most of the returns. In urban markets that are getting an influx of people and industry, however, Real Estate can indeed outpace inflation, but the number of markets that do this are rare. Also, if you look at it strictly as an investment (as opposed to the question of ""Is it worth it to own my own home?"") there are a lot of additional costs that you have to recoup, from property taxes to bills, rental headaches etc. It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence." "Note: I am making a USA-assumption here; keep in mind this answer doesn't necessarily apply to all countries (or even states in the USA).  You asked two questions: I'm looking to buy a property. I do not want to take a risk on this   property. Its sole purpose is to provide me with a place to live. How   would I go about hedging against increasing interest rates, to counter   the increasing mortgage costs? To counter increasing interest rates, obtaining a fixed interest rate on a mortgage is the answer, if that's available.  As far as costs for a mortgage, that depends, as mortgages are tied to the value of the property/home.  If you want a place to live, a piece of property, and want to hedge against possible rising interest rates, a fixed mortgage would work for these goals. Ideally I'd like to not lose money on my property, seeing as I will be   borrowing 95% of the property's value. So, I'd like to hedge against   interest rates and falling property prices in order to have a risk   neutral position on my property. Now we have a different issue.  For instance, if someone had opened a fixed mortgage on a home for $500,000, and the housing value plummeted 50% (or more), the person may still have a fixed interest rate protecting the person from higher rates, but that doesn't protect the property value.  In addition to that, if the person needed to move for a job, that person would face a difficult choice: move and sell at a loss, or move and rent and face some complications. Renting is generally a good idea for people who (1) have not determined if they'll be in an area for more than 5-10 years, (2) want the flexibility to move if their living costs rises (which may be an issue if they lose wages), (3) don't want to pay property taxes (varies by state), homeowner's insurance, or maintenance costs, (4) enjoy regular negotiation (something which renters can do before re-signing a lease or looking for a new place to live).  Again, other conditions can apply to people who favor renting, such as someone might enjoy living in one room out of a house rather than a full apartment or a person who likes a ""change of scenes"" and moves from one apartment to another for a fresh perspective, but these are smaller exceptions. But with renting, you have nothing to re-sell and no financial asset so far as a property is concerned (thus why some real estate agents refer to it as ""throwing away money"" which isn't necessarily true, but one should be aware that the money they invest in renting doesn't go into an asset that can be re-sold)." "There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the ""basket of goods"" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move." Real estate is always an interesting dynamic.  In most cases prices have always gone up.   Price is mainly a function of demand.  Sometimes demand is artificially inflated over a short term period and can come down quickly due to corrections.  During recessions the housing market will usually slow down.  There are some rare instances where certain areas never recover (see Subprime Mortgage Crisis Savings & Loans Crisis where scores of unwanted properties exist).  Things to consider: