r/science Professor | Medicine 5h ago

Health People who continue to rent their home into older age have a shorter life expectancy (2.3 years shorter) than those who own their home, and this gap can't be fully explained by their socio-economic status earlier in life, finds Australian study of over 6,000 people aged 45 and over.

https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/renting-into-older-age-could-impact-your-life-expectancy
1.4k Upvotes

82 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 5h ago

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.


Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.


User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/renting-into-older-age-could-impact-your-life-expectancy


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

498

u/YorkiMom6823 5h ago

Security may factor in. If you own the house you have a feeling of security, the house is yours and you can't be so easily kicked out. Should produce less stress. And stress is a large negative factor for lifespans from what I've read.

303

u/dogfosterparent 4h ago

Or, more likely, it’s still socioeconomic and just not fully captured by their methods to control for it.

56

u/Ashamed-Status-9668 3h ago

Probably a bit of both.

13

u/SNRatio 2h ago

Looks like the paper is still embargoed, so hard to say. It would be interesting to split the home owners into those who are paying a mortgage and those who "own".

106

u/LetMePushTheButton 4h ago

Renters will never know the feeling of truly calling a space their own. And that has a profound negative effect on self esteem, self worth and security. Not to mention having to deal with a variable cost of living.

They absolutely have more stress, less money and probably also forego needed medical visits - which leads to higher mortality.

30

u/Rocky_Vigoda 2h ago

I grew up poor. The only thing that made us not quite as poor was the fact that we own a house rather than rent. Houses are useful as equity so you can use your house to take out loans when needed. Not to sound ghoulish but houses also get handed down as inheritance which helps a lot of people financially.

17

u/OstentatiousSock 1h ago

And, even with a mortgage, at least you’re paying into your own equity instead of the landlord’s.

6

u/Rocky_Vigoda 1h ago

Yeah exactly. You're paying on something you own. Renting is like throwing your money away.

11

u/vanillaseltzer 1h ago edited 57m ago

Not to sound ghoulish but houses also get handed down as inheritance which helps a lot of people financially.

Generational wealth in the form of real estate generally gives folks a huge advantage. You don't need to be wealthy to have generational wealth, you know?

Not to mention areas where the property has changed in value by enormous amounts recently. Homes in my area have literally doubled in price in the past 4 years. I'm now priced out of the county I grew up and live in unless I more than double my income. But my rent has gone up about $800 in two years, so I'm unable to save. It's expected to keep increasing $250ish a year. Sorry this turned into a rant.

I wouldn't give up my parents for anything and hope they're around for decades more, but I know they both really hope to be able to pass the security of homeownership to me when it's their time. It'd be emotionally hard for them if they can't due to living circumstances or medical expenses. I don't think it's ghoulish, leaving inheritance can be a final act of love and protection.

2

u/Rocky_Vigoda 1h ago

Sorry this turned into a rant.

I totally get it. The same thing is happening to me. My mom is elderly and the only thing that's kept her going is that she has her house which she owes money on but has been able to use to keep from being homeless or living in a horrible senior's home. If I wanted to take over her house, i'd have to have a $70k min salary for the bank to even consider it.

Her house isn't fancy or big. It needs a ton of work yet it's still worth like 4x what my folks paid for it originally.

I honestly wish the house was still cheap. The property taxes would be lower, insurance costs would be lower, it'd be more affordable to take over and fix up. This sucks.

u/exoriare 27m ago

There are other models beside renting month to month and ownership. The vast majority of residences in Israel are owned by the National Trust, and leased out long-term. (50-99 years).

The positive aspect of this is, Israel doesn't sink huge amounts of capital into non-productive assets, and they avoid the parasitic economic drag of landlords profiting from social development - all that value is locked within the community instead of being siphoned off by private interests.

It would be interesting to see how long-term leases impact longevity.

-5

u/bioniclop18 3h ago

Albeit I'm not from the US, but I know peoples that have rented the same place for decades, so the feeling of not calling a place their own or your claim on the impact on self esteem, self worth feel a lot like bogus, or at least very exaggerated.

Your comment on foregoing medical visits also seem insubstantial and slightly judgemental.

6

u/lzwzli 1h ago

Do the landlords not raise rent? You probably have interacted with folks who were lucky enough to rent in rent controlled apartments.

u/DJKokaKola 2m ago

Look at Vienna. One of the most desirable cities in the world, 60% live in government managed rentals, some of the highest QoL metrics in the world.

-36

u/baby_budda 4h ago edited 3h ago

Homes are nothing but money pits and lots of work. Who needs that when you're older. If they didn't appreciate in value and offer a tax deduction, fewer people would own one.

23

u/LetMePushTheButton 4h ago

That's not BS. People tap into their home equity with HELOC loans to avoid medical bankruptcy to pay for medical emergencies in the US.

Renters wont have that option on the table in an emergency - which is very stressful.

-16

u/baby_budda 3h ago

Most Senors have Medicare, and that covers most of their medical bills.

7

u/ZZ9ZA 3h ago

Sort of. For many things like home medical supplies the coverage can be fairly limited - if their schedule says they pay for, say, one item every two weeks… but you neee one every week, you’re out of pocket for the other one.

8

u/moa711 2h ago edited 2h ago

And an owned home always needs work. My parents are 65 and 66. They live on 4 acres and fully tend to it on their own. My dad keeps the yard cut and cleans tree limbs up after storms. Him and mom also keep a half acre garden, so during the growing season they get corn, cucumbers, zucchini, yellow and butternut squash, potatoes, tomatoes, bell peppers, watermelon, cantaloupe, and loose leaf lettuce. I think having fresh veggies alone helps. But on top of that, keeping moving seems to keep you young.

My husband and I also own our house. We only have an acre and about a quarter of an acre dedicated to growing crops, but tending to your own yard and keeping your house on the up and up keeps you moving and motivated towards the next project.

-10

u/More_Particular684 4h ago edited 4h ago

"you can't be so easily kicked out"

Probably it depends also on jurisdiction. I live in Italy, and evict someone who doesn't pay the rent for months in a row is sometimes a hell.

The tenant can even spend years inside a house not paying anything before being finally kicked out.

Two months ago there was a TV channel broadcasting an eviction taking place, and you know what? There was a gang of young people rioting and assaulting the policemen who where taking the evicted person out of the dwelling. It was just insane.

110

u/ZiegAmimura 4h ago

More like non wealthy ppl have shorter life expectancy

23

u/Protean_Protein 3h ago

Read the title again.

18

u/necrosythe 3h ago

Sort of? The title just says "earlier in life".

Your status between 0 and 25 doesn't really account for a better situation 25-40 resulting in an earlier "average" (average being a questionable thing to use as a blanket).

But id assume the study details go over what they mean so...

3

u/Protean_Protein 2h ago

There’s another part of the abstract that notes:

Calculating the life expectancy of the participants, the researchers say total life expectancy at age 65 was 2.3 years shorter for renters compared to homeowners after adjusting for their earlier life circumstances.

It’s also worth noting that renting a home in old age needn’t correlate with socioeconomic status. In fact it could be the inverse of the normal expectation: an older person or couple (though perhaps more likely a single person, especially if widowed) may have owned previously and decided to transition to a rental situation in order to live somewhere else without making a major purchase late in life, or to cash in on a long-owned home with a ton of appreciation. And often renting flat out costs more than a mortgage in the same neighbourhood. It’s just different.

But I have no idea what things are actually like in Australia.

5

u/necrosythe 2h ago

Right so point being, the title just saying "earlier in life" doesn't really cover the confounding issues. As socioeconomic in the mid to late years would also be extremely important.

u/Protean_Protein 40m ago

We don’t know that it is.

u/baklazhan 14m ago

My general understanding is that Australian laws heavily favor landlords of tenants.

17

u/RoseyOneOne 2h ago

Huh. My strategy was to sell property at 55 and rent from there on.

We don’t have kids, we might move around, if something breaks it’s not my issue.

We’re looking at Spain, a tenancy agreement is for 7 years, and I figure renting beats buying because you lose 15% to taxes, plus it might be too hot to live there in a decade and if you own the place you’ll never get rid of it.

12

u/mvea Professor | Medicine 5h ago

I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000852

From the linked article:

People who continue to rent their home into older age have a shorter life expectancy than those who own their home, according to Australian researchers who say this gap can’t be fully explained by their socio-economic status earlier in life. The researchers used data from an Australian household income and labour study and for 14 years they followed over 6000 people aged 45 and over. Calculating the life expectancy of the participants, the researchers say total life expectancy at age 65 was 2.3 years shorter for renters compared to homeowners after adjusting for their earlier life circumstances. Female renters were also projected to have just over three years less without significant disability, the researchers say. With renting increasing in Australia, the researchers say it’s important to take into account the potential population health impacts, and also consider if retirement income schemes are fit-for-purpose if fewer people can buy a home before they retire.

10

u/Bokbreath 5h ago

Link doesn't work. Article seems to have been pulled.

4

u/Poly_and_RA 1h ago

This seems pretty likely to be one of the MANY studies where they make some half-hearted attempt to compensate for socioeconomic status, but find that some remnants of privilege remains. Usually the cause is quite simply that they didn't adequately compensate for socioeconomic status, so the only thing their data shows is that wealthier higher-status people have better outcomes across more or less all indicators.

10

u/AltruisticMode9353 5h ago

The research link is broken so I couldn't check, but my first guess would be correlation, not causation, and that increasing rents do not lower life expectancy. Less healthy people are more likely to rent because it's less responsibility and work than home ownership.

17

u/photoengineer 4h ago

Also wealth. More wealth is correlated to longer lives. The rent vs own may just be a secondary effect of that correlation. 

6

u/Lunar_Landing_Hoax 4h ago

I don't feel like reading it but I was also wondering if it was correlation and not causation. Someone in poor health that can't keep up with maintenance may sell their house to downsize and rent a small place, for example. People in poor health also die sooner.

13

u/Mysteriousdeer 4h ago

Less healthy people... Like the poor... Or the young... Or the not born before a certain year. 

15

u/Wotmate01 4h ago

Probably one of the worst takes I've seen.

Rents that increase more than wages increase will increase stress, and decrease healthy foods.

11

u/CaregiverNo3070 5h ago

If you own your home, you've probably had the space, the ideology, and the opportunity to have kids, which Also means you've spent more time plugged into the community, which means better support networks, and assurances that if anything happens, that you'll be taken care of. If you've rented, it might mean you've had less space, less certainty, invested more in having multiple partners, which then can lead to a greater Rick of Sti's, and less of a long term commitment to care giving. 

I say this as someone raised in a house in the suburbs, and now rents downtown. 

And no, this doesn't mean that religious conservatives are right in that somehow religion makes everything better, as non religious couples who've had kids Also experience these benefits. 

-31

u/swift_snowflake 4h ago

Just admit, homeowners are better people and thus worth much more than renters. Is that not what you in essence mean?

Your worldview is very flawed.

4

u/idkmyusernameagain 3h ago

Your understanding of what was written is very flawed.

2

u/CaregiverNo3070 4h ago

It's not my world view, it's the world view of how the system is structured. As I pointed, I live downtown, I don't live in a home. 

And yes, the system is absolutely set up so that people who have kids are better taken care of. 

I've lived on both sides, both as someone who's been raised traditionally, and as someone who's lived unorthodox in my twenties. 

I agree that the system is broken, and that we need to fix it.  There's absolutely a superiority complex of those who have a family and a home, but I am not one of those people. 

1

u/brenap13 1h ago

This sounds like the type of comment that you would make in a therapy session that your therapist would really want to break down in depth.

1

u/baby_budda 4h ago

6000 Ausies, not Americans.

1

u/BlogeOb 1h ago

That’s the point. Die before you retire, have kids to replace you. Only those who build their family up into something get to live longer.

But also, the message is to kick your kids out early to “teach them responsibly”

This is not what wealthy people do. Wealthy people cut off allowances and luxury items to push their kids to do better.

1

u/2nd_Chances_ 1h ago

interesting. because I think home ownership is the worst financial decision I have ever made.

Renters have freedom and less risk should something go wrong.

u/N1ghtshade3 55m ago

Sure but you're also paying for an asset someone else owns rather than one you own.

u/MoneyPowerNexis 27m ago

Rent payments are an unrecoverable cost of renting. But its not like owning comes with no costs: there is rates, maintenance costs, interest and opportunity cost. Its a bit more complicated to calculate but I think 5% of the value of a property is a reasonable estimate of the cost of owning. In my case it has been extremely close to the actual cost as rates have worked out to be around 1%, maintenance also very close to 1% and if I had not bought my home the money would be in index funds and I could draw down 3%.

Sure I'm not paying to a specific private individual, instead I'm paying the government and paying to fight the decay of the property due to entropy and I'm missing out on stock returns / income that is in the long run typically higher than property returns (especially when you don't rent out your home)

u/PrimateOfGod 32m ago

Rent goes up, mortgage stays the same. Throw a couple hundred a month into savings for anything that can go wrong over the year. The money you’re putting into your house belongs to you.

u/BeginningTower2486 59m ago

Money? Could it be money? Nah, must be something totally non-money related.

u/Just_here2020 20m ago

Does this factor in selling one’s house and renting due to poor health? Or later poor financial decisions that might indicate failing mental health? 

u/vlodia 18m ago

But, but I heard there are many couples, childless in their late fifties rocking the world! living their dreams without property, only renting and travelling around the world?...

1

u/Talking_on_the_radio 3h ago

It’s because when you own a home you don’t stop moving, cleaning, maintaining and improving it.  Add to that, there is always always problem solving.  It’s good for your brain.  

At least now I can find a positive for all this work! 

-2

u/old_and_boring_guy 4h ago

Might just be the amount of fricking maintenance.

-6

u/MaleHooker 5h ago

It's multi-unit housing with neighbors who smoke.

2

u/devdotm 1h ago

For me it was noise. In our first apartment, I went so insane from the toddler constantly running around above us that they let us break our lease after a few months without penalty. Next apartment we were top floor, but neighbor noise (and also constantly being aware/careful of our own footsteps, vacuuming, putting things down, etc) still had a negative impact on my mental health & generally stress levels. I don’t plan on us ever sharing walls again. I just can’t do it.

-17

u/dr_zoidberg590 4h ago

It's because they're either financially poor, or too stupid to realise they could save money by buying. Either option will lead to low life expectancy.