Surely it's the other way around. The renter has far more freedom, they can easily pack up their things and go. The renter has also has far fewer responsibilities than the owner.
They would still need to complete their lease or pay the penalty, I dont think 'easily' is the appropriate adverb. Besides homeowners can also do this, it's called selling your home, people do it all the time albeit with a bit more paperwork than the renter.
The lack of freedom derives not from imaginary mobility constraints, but from the provision of shelter coming from a 3rd party landlord. Your roof is resting on the whims of a profit motive for someone who owes you nothing.
You can't see how that presents a fundamental lack of independence?
> whims of a profit motive for someone who owes you nothing.
what whims? I have a lease for X months. Yes all bets are off after that. No one is acting on whims.
Homeowners are also at the whims of cost of labor to make essential repairs , cost of necessary appliances , property tax increases, employment opportunities near your home if you lose your job and whims of the banks that can foreclose your home.
Nothing in life is a guarantee . Owing mortgage payments to a bank vs renting isn't more freedom. Renters can become homeowners if they want and homeowners are forced to become renters ( remember 2009 ) . So i don't really understand what 'freedom' being a homeowner gives you. Your financial status give you freedom not your home ownership status.
They have more "freedom" than renters, right? They can pack up and head somewhere else whenever they want (as they're not bound by a lease), and they have absolutely zero responsibilities to anyone other than to obey the law.
But they have the least personal financial freedom, is my point.
