And the stability of buying is undervalued. It's telling that this article frames housing as an investment vehicle rather than as a basic necessity. And it's not just a necessity because it shelters you from the elements and gives you storage for your stuff; it anchors you in a neighborhood and allows you to begin forming a local community. The flexibility of renting that this article glorifies is itself anathema to knowing and befriending your neighbors on anything but the shortest of terms; even if you don't intend to move, you have no guarantee that they won't up and exercise that flexibility. This is a major contributor to the modern loneliness epidemic.
I don't know many homeowners who formed "local communities" with their neighbors. I know a few, but not many. And I know renters who know all their neighbors well. Seems more like a personality trait than something enabled by owning where you live.
I don’t know. The effect of many families with young children all going and buying a house at roughly the same time is absolutely a thing. My street was filled with children when I was young (newly built neighborhood), and the same thing is true again now that I’ve bought a house. The street is filled with parents and children at roughly the same place in life. It’s nice when the only thing you need to do to find playmates is make noise in the street.
100% this - it is exception, small exception that communities can be formed with neighbours. take home-owners associations into the equation and there is higher likelyhood you’ll punch someone than have a beer with them
0% this - neighborhoods with single family homes are more likely to have families, and kids often create friendships that carry over to parent friendships. And if anybody in the neighborhood takes the initiative to plan block parties, dinner parties, etc., that really helps a community take root.
This just doesn't happen as often with apartments, where people are more transient and more likely to be single and/or childless.
I am strictly talking about USA and I believe this entire thread is. I am originally from Eastern Europe, grew up in a 12-story building and can still recipe names of pretty much everyone that lived in the building when I left in 1992. Not only in that building but also a 10-story adjecent building :)
This really just depends on the city. These kinds of generalizations just don’t hold for different cities with different cultures of community. I, for one, spent my entire childhood living in apartments, as did everyone I knew (and probably almost everyone does in large cities) and now am raising my own family in an apartment in a neighborhood with lots of other families. This kind of living is the norm in many places.
Much of this is location dependent. I’ve rented (and owned) in neighborhoods with really strong communities where everybody knew each other; and I’ve rented in neighborhoods where no one knew each other and people got suspicious if you tried to talk to them.
My building has a building association and we have meetings and also group events. When we were robbed our neighbours were there to help us. I definitely feel part of my community in my building. I think partly it is Dutch culture. I didn’t feel welcome at all by my neighbours in Norway in any of the neighbourhoods I lived in. I don’t think it’s just a personality thing.
I owned for the last 25 years (3 houses, 8, 8 and 9 years) and am very social person. I do not have a single neighbour friend in all these years. what you are describing is (in vast majority of cases especially in urban areas) just wishful thinking.
This was also our experience while owning three homes in single-family neighborhoods over a 35-year period. We knew our neighbors enough to say "hello", but that was it, and we never associated with them. However, 13 years ago we bought an apartment in a large high-rise condominium building. To our surprise - because that was not a consideration when we moved - we have made many good friends among our neighbors. We go out to dinner together, we invite each other to our homes and to family celebrations. The downside is an aspect of communal living. For example, we needed a new carpet in the building's lobby, so all the owners voted on the color. The majority chose green and we hate green, but we have to live with it.
No doubt there are many counter-points. My Godfather lives 4 miles from me and lives in a community where 3-4 of his neighbours have his house keys, take care of each other’s kids, dogs when out of town… I just don’t think - in general - that there is a statistically significant correlation between home ownership and living in a community like OP and you are describing
yes, because he forgot about the car. The reason we don’t befriend our neighbors is because as soon as we leave our home, we put ourselves in a metal cage, ensuring no one will talk to us if we don’t want them to.
Befriending your neighbors kind of works in a city but only REALLY works in Amish communities.
I'd argue it's not undervalued, lots of people are aware of this benefit and that's why so many people want to own their own home despite renting being the better financial option on paper. It's strange the article doesn't mention it though.
Personally, after witnessing both sides of the coin second-hand, I am not leaning in the direction of either buying or renting in absolute. It is highly dependent on the context and circumstances of a specific situation/market.
I am aware that this is just an anecdote (i.e., it isn't going to say much about the overall state of things across all states in the US), but there is a specific example I'd witnessed myself, which led me to believe that this is a bit more complicated than just "renting is the move" and "buying is the move."
TLDR: one of my former coworkers bought a condo in Queen Anne neighborhood of Seattle (which is a highly desirable and expensive neighborhood in that metro area). Within the first year of his ownership, the pipes behind his laundry machine burst due to no fault of his own (while he was at work), and it ended up flooding the apartment of the neighbor below. It decimated the flooring of both his own unit and the unit of the neighbor below. He ended up was facing the costs of unfucking his own condo AND the unit below.
I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head at all (as the whole thing happened around 2018-2019, and I wasn't really involved in any direct way at all), but I remember that he did the math and (based upon the numbers, reasonably) ended up selling his condo as soon as he'd finished fixing his own unit + paying for the fixes to the unit below.
Meanwhile, I am currently renting, and if the pipes in my unit burst and end up flooding the neighbors below, it would be mostly the problem of the property management company running my building to deal with, not mine. This alone make me feel way more stable than if I'd owned the unit I live in atm.
In our condominium building (42 floors) the rule is that every apartment owner is responsible for any damages to their apartment, even if they are caused by an apartment in an upper floor. This is because otherwise the owners of the upper floors would have to have million-dollar insurance premiums to cover the possibility of a leak in their apartment causing damages to multiple floors below. We had an event where a burst pipe in the 28th floor caused damages all the way down to the 8th floor.
If you're renting, getting the landlord to deal with an acute issue is pretty clear cut. They usually get it done. It's the slow burn neglect shit that's almost impossible to get fixed.
Anecdote of my own: The last place we rented before buying had a minor roof leak. Minor, but still a roof leak. The landlord was old, her daughter was responsible for a lot of stuff, and they were both remote for at least part of the year. It took 3 years for them to finally get the roof replaced, evidently about a year after we left.
And these were good landlords. They took care of a bunch of minor disasters in good time: dishwasher, washing machine, thermostats for the baseboard electric heat, stack vent got clobbered by ice coming off the roof? All dealt with promptly. But the roof, important though it was, wasn't a big enough problem to merit quick attention. The place was a log home, and by appearances, hadn't been subjected to any kind of refinishing for a good while too.
> It's the slow burn neglect shit that's almost impossible to get fixed.
There are definitely tons of pros that come from renting from small/individual landlords (e.g., potentially tiny/non-existent monthly rental cost increases over the years; I have an acquaintance who managed to keep the same lease price [which was already extremely low for the neighborhood] for about 3 years now in LES neighborhood of Manhattan).
However, what you described is precisely one of my biggest personal concerns, hence why I tend to stick with larger/property-management-company-run properties+buildings that are, in general, newer. I discovered that it is much easier to get property management companies to get things like that done. In fact, after some of my current neighbors complained enough about elevator outages over the past month (for context: the building is 30 floors tall and has 3 elevators, but we recently had multiple weeks where only one elevator was functional, which led to large elevator lines and slow service), everyone automatically got a $500 credit applied to their next rent payment.
As an approximation, condo fees make explicit a number of recurring costs that are only implicit when you own. E.g. heating/cooling, maintenance, landscaping, accumulating an emergency fund, etc. Thus, if a condo is half-renting, so is buying a house.
Some condo corporations are poorly managed and lack sufficient emergency funds, or proper maintenance, and thus resort to special assessments that are not funded in advance. The same is true of many homeowners.
As a homeowner, that is 100% in your control whereas with a condo it isn’t. I have seen so many times in the local news about condos who are underwater because the board decided to not proactively save and fix things which was a democratic decision made by the board.
Honestly I have such low trust in the ability for humans to plan for the future over the now. It is like a bug in our psychology.
Nothing keeps the condo owner from realizing how underfunded the association is and saving that amount each month for the inevitable emergency.
Most home owners don’t do this either, but it’s pretty much the same thing short of an association leaving stuff so long it ends up being more expensive overall.
Stuff like siding isn’t really all that hard to predict - it typically has a useful life and easy to calculate like a roof. Might get lucky or unlucky but it all averages out in the end over time. If you’re not saving/spending about 2% of your property value each year for maintenance you are almost always running on hopes and prayers.
Granted, the outlier cases a condo owner has far less control over the situation- including neglect to the point of building collapse.
>As a homeowner, that is 100% in your control whereas with a condo it isn’t.
As a homeowner I have definitely had some 5 figure costs over the years that were totally unexpected and several in the low 5 figure range that really needed to be done. Doesn't mean I couldn't cover them in some way shape or form but they happened.
That would be an HOA moreso than the features of a condo, although a condo tends to imply an HOA in the US. The irony of my experiences with an HOA is that its actions tended to suppress my property value rather than preserve or grow it.
I don't know how a condo building could operate without some kind of shared ownership structure for the common areas and shared infrastructure. What are the alternatives to an HOA in a condo building?
Technically it doesn’t (as it means condominium which in theory could be single family homes) but practically it almost always means an “apartment you own” though sometimes “half a duplex” or similar proportions of a quad or six plex style.
But in the US it usually implies neighbors above and below and on the sides.
I live in a traditional middle class neighborhood and half the houses are rentals for college kids and people who can't buy. I'm not sure who to agree with here.
I don’t think renting or buying makes a difference in communities. I had a much better relationship with my neighbors when I rented vs now where I own my own home.
I chalk up the difference to the fact that a lot of people my age couldn’t afford to live where I moved so my neighborhood is full of wealthier older people who I have nothing in common with.
We need, as a society, to bring back generational communities.
Our workplaces are not our families!
I'll also add, that once you have children, owning your home is a very welcome level of stability.
Nothing worse than looking for a new rental and potentially being forced to upend all your routines and find new schools for the kids as you cant rent in the same area anymore!
> once you have children, owning your home is a very welcome level of stability
I think this is the biggest factor if it applies. If we want to be utilitarian about it, the benefit to your kids of having the same school to attend, same neighbors to play with, same room to call their own and paint the walls as they desire, etc. just dwarfs everything else. Kids just do well in stable, predictable home environments.
Almost everyone I know has a significant portion of their wealth in home equity. The renters I know tend to have much lower wealth. This is reflected broadly in the US wealth distribution.
You brought up a good point though, and that’s the trap of being house poor. Too many owners fail to look / have not been taught to factor local property taxes and maintenance costs into their homes. My network definitely has people caught unaware by escrow shortages, siding costs, roof costs, HVAC stack costs.
Despite it all, US homeowners seem to edge out renters, but it doesn’t have to be causative, either.
It would help if they didn’t buy a home that required them to sustain the same level of income indefinitely? I certainly didn’t buy the largest I could afford.
and while its not necessarily wrong, I believe it under weights a few points:
- Fixing your housing costs against inflation: You can't count on housing price increases, but you can count on inflation. If you buy a house and your mortgage payment is > rent. Overtime it will naturally flip. $1 no longer buys me a chocolate bar, and $800/month no longer gets me a 2 bed apartment.
- Leverage: I can't get a $700k loan to put into equities but I can for a home.
- Capital Battery: As I build equity in my home it can become an asset I take loans against to pursue other opportunities.
- Flexibility: Should I need to fiscally downsize I can still move out and rent out. Or rent a portion either via a suite or secondary unit
- Stability: No one can evict me into a hot rental market to suit their needs.
I wish more people talked about these points, selfishly so I didnt take so many of these articles at face value because in hindsight I wouldve bought earlier.
Any sort of serious buy vs rent calculator already takes this into account, for instance the one on nytimes
>- Capital Battery: As I build equity in my home it can become an asset I take loans against to pursue other opportunities.
That feels absolutely insane to me, especially when you consider that by the time you built up significant amounts of equity you'll have significant commitments (eg. college age kids) and/or be close to retirement. Going 3x on S&P500 might be justified when you're a new grad, but not beyond your 30s.
>- Flexibility: Should I need to fiscally downsize I can still move out and rent out. Or rent a portion either via a suite or secondary unit
How is this more flexible than the counterfactual of renting?
> No one can evict me into a hot rental market to suit their needs.
The bank can, if you take out too many loans against your house that you can’t pay back. When you barrow against your house you’re increasing your risk.
“Rational people don’t risk what they have and need for what they don’t have and don’t need.” - Warren Buffett
My house is paid off now and I can’t think of anything that would make me barrow against it. Setting aside variable maintenance costs, with only having to worry about property taxes now, I could work at Costco and make ends meet now. That gives me some peace of mind against an uncertain job market. A loan against the house would change that equation wildly.
It’s true over leveraging seems to be the American way, but GP was saying, I think, that homeownership does not have the risk of a landlord ending an otherwise mutually accepted relationship.
If this is still accurate, a third of renters could theoretically be told the rent is doubling or learning the lease is ending. Depending on the health of the market, that can be a major risk, and not everyone can or wants the flexibility of a rental at all times.
You're not taking into account that housing prices can fall, not just stay flat and there are always things to fix and deal with in a house that you own.
Renting it out is also not always gauranteed or easy if you are not nearby or don't want to deal with being a landlord, so imho that flexibility is not really there in many cases.
Many countries tax systems give home owners preferential tax treatment for the primary home. I'll give an example from Australia:
The Australian age pension is means tested - there's a test of both income and assets. If your income and/or assets are too high, you get no age pension. But homeowners benefit from special treatment: A retired couple who own a home are eligible for the full aged pension if their assets excluding the value of their home are worth at most AUD 481.5k. A retired couple who are not homeowners are eligible for the full aged pension if their assets are worth at most AUD 749.5k.
For the purposes of getting a public funded aged pension or not, the value of the home is deemed to be about AUD 270k regardless of its actual market value -- contrast that with the median price of a home in Sydney being about AUD 1.6m!
Back of the envelope comparison:
Retired couple with paid off house worth $1.6m in Sydney, budget of $5k / yr for council rates and insurance + $16k/yr (1% of $1.6m median home value, say) as budget for home maintenance. Suppose our couple also have $481.5k in financial assets outside of the home generating a 4% real return, the max amount they can have as homeowners for the full age pension. Gross income from financial assets and full aged pension is $60,470. Housing costs are 35% of gross income, leaving 65% of gross income -- $39,470 to pay non housing living expenses.
Compare with a retired couple in Sydney who have the same net worth -- $2081.5k -- except all in financial assets, not home owners. Suppose they rent a 2 bed apartment in Sydney at $900 / week. They are not eligible for any age pension as their non-home financial assets exceed the means-tested assets cap of $1.37m for a part pension for a couple who don't own a home. Their gross income from financial assets, assuming a 4% real return, is $83.26k. Their housing costs from renting are $46.8k / yr, leaving them with $36,460 to pay non housing living expenses.
So, of the two couples with identical net worths, the couple with most of their wealth concentrated in the $1.6m sydney house has about 8% extra cash to spend on non housing living expenses, and gets to enjoy the benefit of living in a house vs a 2 bed apartment, and also enjoys the additional stability in their retirement years with no way a landlord can suddenly force them to move.
The calculation above ignores income tax. But - if we assume both couples have their financial assets parked in tax advantaged retirement accounts (Australia's superannuation system), then their retirement income streams from these financial assets is tax free, and although the age pension is taxable income, the couple receiving the age pension wouldn't expect to pay any income tax, due to the tiered progressive tax rates and additional tax offsets for seniors and pensioners.
> Leverage: I can't get a $700k loan to put into equities but I can for a home.
Exactly, and most people wouldn't even be able to get half of that for investing in a business that turns a profit and employs local people. So that's why all money is rushing into real estate and the industrial world is dying now. And death is forever.
The home buying process seems to have been thoroughly corrupted, at least in the US. The transaction costs are high, parasitic HOAs and paying over ask have been normalized, new homes are built as cheaply as possible, investors are driving up costs, etc. etc. The investment aspect is a bit overrated. You can't get that money 'back' because you still need a place to live. Most folks just flip their equity into the next place, so it never really comes back to them until they downsize or die.
I've been a homeowner for 30 years and am now renting a temporary apartment in a new location. There's a lot of upside of renting. I don't like apartment living at all, but I don't feel anchored to the location at all and have the freedom to live wherever without a bunch of overhead. I'm definitely spending more money per square foot renting, and obviously none of this is coming back to myself or my family, but that's ok for me right now.
I think my main takeaway is that there is no rule about what is best. It's what's right for you at that time of your life. A house is nice when you have kids and want some stability. Renting is nice when you want freedom and flexibility.
> People obsess over granite countertops, open floor plans, stainless steel appliances, and walk in closets. These might make you happy but they don’t make you rich.
Money is a means to an end, and being happy is a fine end. I only live once and if I can be happy, well then I've pretty much won. Also you're not going to "get rich" by renting, if (and it's a huge if) you can somehow make renting work in your financial favor compared to buying, it's going to be a tiny bit better. You're not going to 10X your income renting.
He also completely discounts the cost of moving constantly (aka "flexibility"), movers, deposits, furnishings... it's not cheap. Yeah you can move yourself (add in the cost of vehicle to make that happen) but it's going to take time, and time is money.
First of all, I fundamentally disagree on the notion that buying a home should be considered an investment (I would go as far as to argue that this attitude is part of the reason the real estate markets are so broken in many places of the world). I don't want to be rich and I don't need to be - I just want a place where my kids some day can grow up, where I can enjoy the sun in the garden and invite family and friends over to spend a nice evening. I do not care about the financial aspect of it beyond "can I afford this without overstretching and putting my family into financial danger".
From a purely financial perspective, I think you could say: the more protections you as a renter receive, the more renting makes sense.
Living in Germany, I do have quite a few protections as a renter. My landlord can't arbitrarily hike prices, etc. In my current city, it would be absolutely impossible to get a mortgage anywhere close to my current monthly rent (even with substantial equity)
> Living in Germany, I do have quite a few protections as a renter. My landlord can't arbitrarily hike prices, etc.
A few years ago, I became quite interested in buying an apartment in Germany for rental income. My German friends thought it was a terrible idea. After reading more about it, I realized it would have been a huge mistake!
When I bought me house what I eventually decided is you can't use ordinary financial metrics for owner occupied housing. The reason is buying a house on credit is essentially the only investment you can make with the money you have available for housing.
My opinion is the issue with renting and housing in general is the world wide financialization of real estate. It's being treated as a primary investment instead of the secondary investment it is. Some fraction of people are getting exceedingly wealthy but there are deep negative effects.
My bet is the crashing fertility rates are likely what's going to put a stop to it. Notable every 15-20 years we have a bigger than the previous financial crisis. Once populations start to decline the bottom will fall out.
> I just want a place where my kids some day can grow up, where I can enjoy the sun in the garden and invite family and friends over to spend a nice evening.
This quote makes real estate "investors", banks and the government tax revenue service drool over how hard you would work to guarantee your children's future. You're up against soulless, calculating cowards who are more than willing to live themselves in misery for the chance to suck your blood.
It's interesting to paint the homeowner as an emotional person and the renter as the pragmatic, however both are roughly equally emotional.
As the rent prices keep rising, the renter in the end will end up spending much more money in the same duration as a mortgage, won't they? After a few years, when they end up owning more of the property, they can secure a good deal with better monthly mortgage payments.
They can also quite easily set up an AirBnB or get proper renters, if they want to have some flexibility, and in most cases the rent money will be more than the mortgage payments, so if they want to rent another place of their liking, the additional income will offset the monthly costs.
its a unique math problem for the individual, but if you ARE buying, that likely means you have a down payment. so if you rent instead, you can then utilize that down payment for other investment opportunities.
this touches on something the author sorta hinted at, mortgage as a forced investment. Some buyers/renters won't view the down payment as an investment opportunity if they go the path of renting, they decide to rent and suddenly theyve got a new car loan and all new furniture or whatever, and that down payment is gone, instead of compounding year over year in an attempt to make renting a financial advantage
you can usually napkin math investing the down payment and it makes more financial sense to rent, but from a human perspective its just not gonna happen like that for so many people. they are gonna mess with that money instead.
How about the act of buying itself? Here where I live, you need to pay 12% on top of the home price simply for taxes and notary service. IMO it's one of the biggest obstacles and why most Swiss people prefer to rent.
Switzerland is a bit different from the US. From what I understand, property ownership entails paying the imputed rental value in taxes, which makes property ownership much less desirable. In the US, mortgage interest is tax deductible up to a certain limit, property taxes are deductible, and there's an amount of capital gains that's excluded from taxation when selling one's primary residence. Compared to other places in the world, the benefits of property ownership are pretty bonkers.
Counterpoint: buying is always better, people just can't afford it.
Here where I live the minimum price for rent is monthly mortgage installement, meaning that you'll pay for rent at least as much as you'd pay for mortgage.
But after you pay your mortgage you still have an asset in your hand. You can pass it on to your children or you can sell it when you're old, downsize (or even rent) and get some cash for your retirement.
If you rent you're left with nothing.
Then why is not everyone buying? Because few people can afford the 20% downpayement needed for mortgage. In reality it's even more because you have to furnish and/or renovate the place.
Renting has it's charm for youngsters, but once you get older and you start acummulating things the lack of stability and the danger of your landlord having a change of heart and breaking the contract (either because he decided to sell it or give it to a child) becomes a pain in the ass. Even having a pet is troublesome and many property owners will refuse to rent if you have a dog or a cat.
Well, no. You're left with the cash you would've spent buying a house.
Whether that's financially better or worse, depends entirely on the mortgage interest, taxes, and maintenance costs of the house, as well as the money you could have earned investing the cash elsewhere, compared to the rent you would have spent over the same time period.
I could have bought 15 years before I did. But because rent was less than half a mortgage (not even including maintenance), I was able to put that extra money into the market and save enough for more than a down payment on a forever home vs starter home when I was ready.
It’s certainly not like for like, but it would have been a poor financial decision to buy vs rent.
Where I live now this math is more or less inverted. Makes more sense to buy vs rent.
In the end your primary residence is a lifestyle decision, not a financial one. It’s not an investment in the traditional sense. It’s speculation at best.
"If I set up a scenario largely in favour of buying, then buying makes more sense"
I have never seen a 1br costing anywhere near as much to rent as a 3br costs to buy. In what markets is this even remotely close to accurate? Or are you just ignoring the cost of ownership entirely?
In the same way the interest payments on a mortgage go the the bank. And the interest is often the majority of the payments people make on a mortgage. If you're renting, in a market where rents are about the same or lower than mortgage interest, then you keep the leftover cash that the buyer put into their house and you can put into whatever investment you choose.
Rents are pretty much always going to be higher than a mortgage for the equivalent housing. It's why people are landlords. He dances around that in the article by saying that people buy "nicer" places than they rent, but that doesn't have to be true.
No, this really is not always the case when controlling for location. (That is, if you're comparing apartments in the middle of the city to houses in the outskirts, you're obviously comparing apples and oranges.)
If you compare equally sized places, rent is pretty much always higher. At least it has been in every city/town I’ve ever lived in. Renting is not cheap, you’re paying a premium to the landlord.
Not all landlords min/max for peak financial outcome.
My landlord for 15 years raised rent exactly once when property taxes had a large jump one year, and was already under market when I started the first lease.
His mortgage was long paid off and he optimized for least hassle vs max money. Worked out for both of us - I called him maybe once a year at most, and he had a decent passive income stream reliably come in without worrying about 2am phone calls because a $50 thermostat broke. He had a nicely appreciated property to sell in his eventual retirement.
It was a 3BR place with a yard larger than I own now. Granted fit and finish is nowhere comparable, but I pay about 4x in mortgage and taxes than what I was paying him for about 1.5x the space.
Such arrangements are increasingly more rare as everything becomes a finance game, but they can still be sought out and developed.
But a mortgage isn’t the cost of owning a house. Rent payments are the cost of renting.
If you want to compare the costs of renting and buying, you need to compare renting=(rent payments + renter’s insurance) vs. owning=(mortgage payments + property taxes + insurance + maintenance and repairs + equity appreciation / depreciation)
Too hand waivey and doesn’t tell the whole story - even with the carry costs “baked in”, renting is generally cheaper in the short run because those costs are lower anyway.
> Average rents are cheaper than average mortgage payments (homeowners insurance and property taxes included) in all 50 of the largest U.S. metros in 2025, with the cost difference between the two growing in all but 12 of those metros since last year, according to Bankrate’s Rent vs. Buy Study.
> Over the last year, the study found average mortgage payments (including principal, interest, homeowners insurance and property taxes) increased while average rents either declined or remained stable in nearly all the metros we analyzed.
> Housing experts said the fact that it’s cheaper to rent in all 50 metros in 2025 is a broader reflection of rental and housing market conditions across the country.
That compares average mortgage and average rent, but the average house you buy is going to be much bigger (and include a yard) than the average rental. They’d need to compare equal properties to have a meaningful study.
> The median age of a renter is 42 years old and about half (46%) of renters are under the age of 40; only 10% of renters are in their seventies or older, and 15% are in their sixties. In other words, the age distribution of renters trends younger than the overall US population.
Which tells us exactly what the GP brought up: renters are younger than buyers.
The carrying cost of a landlord is completely different than the carrying cost of a buyer with a mortgage. A landlord can charge a profitable rent on a property that doesn't even pay the mortgage interest if you were to buy it.
This is a common case. I recently sold a house with a mortgage where my carrying costs were far below that of any buyer of the house, meaning I could break-even renting at a rate that would leave a new buyer losing thousands of dollars per month. You'd be an idiot to not rent in that market but there is no shortage of buyers.
Of course. But as several people have pointed out, the market rate can be far below the equivalent purchase cost and landlords can still make a profit in those markets.
There are many markets where the rental rates are far below mortgage costs for long periods of time.
Rent only has to exceed the property's operating costs -- things like mortgage interest, property tax, paying a manager, insurance, repairs and maintenance -- for the landlord to come out ahead. Paying off the principal is a capital expense.
>Counterpoint: buying is always better, people just can't afford it.
>Renting has it's charm for youngsters
You're sort of contradicting yourself. So long as you think you're sort of settled in an area, buying is probably better.
But, if it's your first job out of school, even if you have a nice bunch of money you could put towards a down payment, it's not clear that buying is a great idea except maybe if you're in an area with lots of jobs for your chosen profession.
Once I bought, somewhat belatedly, I was in an area that offered enough possibilities in my (broadly speaking) field even if a couple commutes were on the long side.
Not really. If it's viable for you then buy your first property as soon as possible and keep saving. When you want to move just buy another and rent the previous one.
In most cases people will need to get a half decent job and save for a few years first but they can keep saving and have enough for another property in few years.
And if you really have to move - then you can still sell that property. People are getting new cars every 2-3 years and it's not that different from swapping real estate.
This presumes that the value of the property doesn't go down. I had more than one friend who bought before the 2008 financial crisis who was pretty stuck with their home. And who the hell has a second down payment for a home after a couple years of mortgage payments, upkeep, and fixing the "surprises" one finds after buying a home?
>And if you really have to move - then you can still sell that property. People are getting new cars every 2-3 years and it's not that different from swapping real estate.
Of course it is. I think the average American car age is 11 years or something like that. But, if I wanted to swap cars like that, I can go into a dealer and basically transact it in 30 minutes. Good luck doing that with a house.
It's not just being able to afford it. It's also how easy can you sell it. Basically, how liquid is the house, and how many expenses are there on the transaction, impacts how much it's worth to buy.
My thought experiment is basically: If I get a new job in a new city, is it smart buy a house right away? And if the answer is not always "yes", then obviously buying is not always the best option.
Where I live, interest payments alone exceed the rental rate for the same property even if you could afford a 20% downpayment. Those interest payments are a total loss. No amount of contortions can make those numbers pencil out where ownership is beneficial to the buyer. As it happens I now rent but I recently sold my house because it didn't make sense even though my carrying costs were far lower than any new buyer.
By the time you pay off a mortgage, a renter could afford to buy the same property for cash with money left over.
Renting is expensive because people can’t buy, driving up prices. If buying were cheap because of increased supply, rent would be cheap too, and much more appealing for the practical benefits. The problem is housing supply, not buying or renting being expensive, that’s a consequence.
> Here where I live the minimum price for rent is monthly mortgage installement, meaning that you'll pay for rent at least as much as you'd pay for mortgage.
When you own, the mortgage payment is the floor on your monthly cash outlay. by contrast, when you rent, the rent is the ceiling on your monthly cash outlay. So even when they are identical, homeownership is way costlier because of all the other costs one "forgets" to consider while making this comparison. HOA dues, home insurance, property tax, maintenance, etc. add up to thousands of dollars each year. As a renter, you don't have to consider any of these beyond your rent.
As a renter I don't pay property tax, but I do pay maintancene, insurance, utility bills and whatever else can easily attached to the monthly bill. The rest is baked into the cost.
Sure, but on the other hand, when you have a mortgage (generally fixed interest rate for 20+ years), your biggest expense is guaranteed to stay static. What will your rent be in 10 years? Who the heck knows?
> Because few people can afford the 20% downpayement needed for mortgage.
Current state of the British economy is the state is looking to allow 40yr 5% deposit mortgages.
We're not quite there yet but it's heading that way. Be very thankful if your country isn't that bad!
Interesting. Down here in Australia our economy has been doing OK, we've had a great run of dodging recessions, but due to house prices appreciating so much since the 90s, there's similar problems with house down payments being far out of reach of many people.
Recently, our government is making a change to allow first homebuyers to purchase properties with only a 5% deposit.
Historically the Australian government set up the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation in '67, to provide insurance for banks against the risk of borrowers defaulting, to support home buyers. In 1997 the Howard government privatised the HLIC by selling it to GE, and we've had a private sector for mortgage insurance since, compulsory if borrowers are borrowing more than 80%.
Now in 2025 the current Albanese government is rolling out a scheme where the government will act as a public mortgage insurer again to allow first home buyers to buy with only a 5% deposit.
I'm not quite sure what to think. I heard an economist interviewed who reckoned this was a great idea to make it easier for young people to get into the property market, arguing that Aussie homeowners historically hardly ever default on mortgages. But naively it seems like this is yet another change that is going to push up house prices even further by increasing demand, without doing something to increase supply.
I also wonder if systemic mortgage default risk appears like it is lower than it actually is because Australia has been lucky enough to escape a major recession for so long.
problem is, politically it is feasible for government to support policy that superficially appears to help home buyers, but also props up housing prices. like all these "give the first home buyers more money / access to loans / reduced stamp duty" policies
a government with an actual serious policy to increase housing supply, which should cause housing prices to fall, might have a lot of trouble getting elected or staying elected (only 1/3 of australian households rent, but that'll increase over time due to wealth inequality)
This is one persons opinions on their own situation. It’s written too broadly, but does a reasonable job representing one side of the tradeoffs that people should consider. It is not particularly balanced or overly insightful for anyone who has spent much time thinking this stuff through, and a lot of statements that could be backed by data are not and are simply asserted as fact. (For example, the idea that renters are more likely to pursue promotions is a very non-serious argument unless backed with some actual data)
If this had been framed differently, it would be more interesting. Instead it comes across as universal (“most people won’t saved unless forced to”) and ignores the many many benefits of buying. (Not mentioning 5x leverage on a historically good asset is willful ignorance)
As a former renter of 20 years, these are great points that everyone should evaluate. As someone for whom home ownership made sense now, I wish I had been able to prioritize those factors earlier as it would have been nice to have my mortgage locked in at 2010 prices.
Something I've noticed is that some cities are better for renters, and others are better for buyers.
My current city in central Europe is very renter-friendly. A nice apartment would cost $600k, but rents practically never exceed $1500/month. Under such circumstances an apartment doesn't seem like a great investment.
I've also lived, briefly, in Canada -- where rents were often extremely high relative to home prices. (I have a friend who pays $300/month on a mortgage and rents the place out for $2000/month. At the same time, the house has nearly tripled in value over the past ~7 years.)
I saw this when I lived in the Chicagoland area. A co-worker was giving me the business for renting instead of buying something. The he let it slip that his property tax alone was $35k/year, almost 2x what I was paying in rent, and that didn’t even include the mortgage.
That's an enormously high property tax bill for Chicagoland. I live in Oak Park, famously one of the highest-taxed areas in the county, in a relatively large house, and my taxes are not close to that (more than $10k less).
I don't doubt you or your friend, but their situation was unique.
Surely this must not have been a like-for-like comparison, unless your landlord is very charitable or somehow secured a much lower property tax rate than your coworker did (as is possible in California through various Prop 13 mechanisms). Have you looked up what the property tax bill is on your apartment?
He had a nice house in an expensive area. I think his wife was someone important at a bank.
I was in a one bedroom apartment, so not like-for-like, but I didn’t need or want anymore space than I had. I was also in a nice area, and in the nicest apartments in that area, as far as I could tell.
A couple people who moved out there when I did bought places, and I heard nothing but regrets from them a year later.
Who are these people who can afford $6k/month for a rental? It has to be a very small percentage of the population, yet I see these kind of numbers thrown around a lot.
Statistically, I’m in the top ~5% of income earners (from the data I can find), with no debt, and I couldn’t afford $6k/month.
I bought a house because I don't understand the rental market anymore. I don’t really like being a home owner, but the rent prices these days are so out of hand. I think the most I ever paid for rent was $1,680 and I felt irresponsible doing that. I don’t know how all these rentals are full with the prices they’re charging. Does everyone have roommates?
The $6k number is a touch high, but the answer is realistically 30-something DINKs and up. I make $150k a year, let’s say, and if I have a spouse with a corporate career let’s say it’s similar so maybe $250k-300k per year in income? Well that’s about $12,000 in income after taxes, medical, and a 10% retirement contribution.
So, yes, $6k per month is house-poor numbers, but it’s workable for sure. If you’re even better off, good for you, it may fall into affordable range.
Making that much, I wouldn’t want to put anymore than 25% of my take-home toward rent. That would mean making $312k take-home… after taxes, retirement, etc.
Maybe I’m conservative, but being house poor while making $300k is insane.
I’m thinking someone would need to be pushing $400-500k for household income. That would put them in the top 3%. I don’t get the supply and demand curve on it. Making that much, and renting. It’s an even smaller market than the full 3%.
I wouldn't want to purely out of the waste, but from a risk perspective, why not? Your other costs don't scale with housing or income, so if you're spending $70k on housing, you might be at $100k overall expenses. Add another $50k for income taxes and $50k for retirement savings and you're still at 50-100k left over for whatever you like (using 250-300 household income).
6k for a mortgage would be scary in case of job loss, but for rent, whatever, just move.
The lease terms would be important. Not all leases let you out whenever you want.
Plus, if a sizable portion of that household income is in the form of stock or a bonus, that isn’t showing up each month in the paycheck, lowering the monthly cash flow. If there is a layoff early in the year before the bonus pays out, and you can’t exit the lease, that would be a bad spot to be in.
There is still risk on the table, depending on how some of this is structured.
With the numbers I had it only takes 1-2 years to save 1 year of runway, so just do that first (presumably you've had a chance to save before getting your 250-300k income anyway). I suppose that the type of people to spend 6k on rent probably aren't saving much, but they could if that were their goal for some reason.
Here a variable rate is norm and has been since I remember.
I was eyeballing a particular house with specific financing in mind just before covid started, and if I'd pull a trigger on that transaction my monthly payement would more than double at some point.
Not faster than rent. You can always challenge your property taxes and shop your homeowners insurance. If your rent goes up, you can only move, which isn’t really an option when all landlords are raising rents in lockstep.
Half of American renters are cost burdened, for example.
Presumably those go up roughly the same for rental properties as well. So while your payments may still go up, you're paying it either way on top of interest/rent.
some parts of california have been affected by insurers more than others, but in those more minimally affected? prop tax is suppressed via prop 13 (for better or worse), and the cost of insurance is a drop in the bucket relative to what id be paying for a roof over my head otherwise tbh
my life cannot be uprooted based on the whims of a crummy landlord or because my obligation has crept out of my budget
i bought conservatively and now have a tiny payment relative to what i’d otherwise have to pay to live in the bay area. peace of mind is hard to put a price on
This is written from the perspective of someone who doesnt have kids or other ties that reduce flexibility (and from that perspective I agree a house is a huge liability in term of being able to make big life changes). It also sucks if you have neighbors you can't stand.
The main advantage of a house imo is that you can't typically rent something comparable, at least where I've lived. The rental market for 4 bedroom houses is tiny compared to the number for sale.
Fully agree on this. If you have kids, stability is important so that can be a good reason to buy, regardless of whether it's an optimal financial decision.
In what possible scenario is burning cash vs keeping a fraction of it a bad financial decision?
I can only imagine it makes financial sense to rent if you live somewhere where you're not paying off someone else's mortgage and are paying a fair renting price. (Otherwise paying your own mortgage just makes more sense)
As an actual honest question, where in the world is like that any more?
The prevalence of luxury apartments flies in the face of the overbuying section. People overbuy on apartments as well.
Every time I see someone arguing about minimum wage, their benchmark seems to be having a 2 bedroom apartment, not a studio or even a 1 bedroom. I find this wildly unrealistic.
Apartments also sell people on amenities that almost no one uses, but justify higher rent prices.
These luxury apartments are used in the same way people use their over-bought homes. It’s a way to buy into a different class of neighbors, feel like you’re not sacrificing with a rental, signal to others that you’re doing well, ideally have better management/maintenance, and live in a place that out-classes the home they may otherwise buy… all with no maintenance or investment.
I’ve seen some crazy rent prices. I’m not sure who is renting these places, but someone must be, because they keep building them.
I prefer renting, but I ended up buying a house because rent prices starting going up beyond what I felt with reasonable.
Where I live, any rental building from this century will be marketed as luxury. There is in fact absolutely nothing luxury about them. Everything is cheap and crummy, just not too dirty/smelly/with rats (yet). Rents are 5-7k for a 2b and being luxury or having amenities have nothing to do with this. Supply and demand do. There are enough people who make this kind of money and value living in a place that is half-decent + easily commutable to the city more than the 6k.
When my computer was getting too loud, I took a drill, made a hole to the closet, and moved it in there and ran the cables through the hole.
When I didn't like mowing the hill behind my house, I had a retaining wall put in. Also preserving the elevated deck.
When I found i didn't like the elevated deck, I build a new ground level one with my father in law.
I'm not sure I like entering into the kitchen so I'll probably put a door into the porch instead.
I'm not saying I couldn't just rent a new place to find better digs. But I hate moving, hate shopping for new houses, love this yard and house in general, and am not paying more month to month than I was when renting (and get much more space for the dollar).
I don't want this place to make me rich, in the above you might get a sense that I already feel content. That's my decision criteria and I don't know why that's incorrect. You don't have to run a household like an investment company.
The framing makes it seem as if valuing stability is somehow inferior while elevating financial growth. This makes me think our financial and housing systems have become so distorted that it has infected our thinking. Adult humans are often super resilient, but kids aren't. Moreover, even adults have limits. I don't want to live in a system filled with chaos just because it makes some intangible number go up. We're all going to die one day. What will we leave behind, material or otherwise? Stability seems very underrated.
Longer time horizon -- mortage inflates away. In the short-term, only need to beat the property tax bill, especially if the interest rate is <3% and the property is increasing in value faster than that.
I’m pretty sure my landlord’s family trust owns our 100 year old home outright. At this point, any rent is “free” for them, modulo repair and maintenance costs.
Because of the price, and the market willing to pay that price. If nobody was willing to pay $2500 for an apartment, nobody would rent it, and the landlord wouldn't have any money. For one person that can't afford a place, there are 10 who can. So landlords quite naturally match the market demand.
In theory rental prices are just the market price. In reality there is a very high pressure on the price to be above whatever the landlord’s mortgage is. I understand why, but i’d still rather pay my mortgage than my landlord’s.
Landlords who rent at their cost and not the market price won't rent.
I don't see how your statement follows at all. I'm sure landlords would prefer rents to be higher than their mortgage but that will be determined by supply and demand, not their desires. The housing market is huge, with lots of alternatives and competition, so you can't exactly price fix it either.
The most convincing argument for buying housing is that it hedges you from potential large future cost of living increases. If you can’t afford repeated rent increases then the consequences will ripple through your life.
I’ve heard this pithily stated as “you are naturally short housing”.
Another newer argument is that if you think inflation could be much higher in the future, then a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is a very attractive instrument; it’s a government-financed option. May as well benefit from it while it lasts. (If rates go down you can just re-fi.)
I have owned a few homes over the years and have also had many landlords. The house we rented in Lafayette, Ca in 2010 was in a nice hood. At the time it was 2 years past the financial crisis and homeownership was not something I wanted to do for a while. The land lady we rented from wanted to sell the house for 650k. That house is now 4.3 million on zillow. Granted it has since had a renovation and an addition, but still. We also rented a townhouse in Encinitas, Ca. The rent was 3k a month in 2017 and now a similar townhouse in the same complex is renting out for 6500. The problem with renting is that eventually you get priced out of the nicer hoods. The problem with not buying a house when a deal shows up in a decent hood is that eventually that hood will never be affordable to mere mortals again. Maybe these rules only apply to California.
The argument the author makes about the returns in stocks being higher than returns in real estate does not really hold when taking leverage into account.
In my country, buying a home is the only way to get cheap debt for the vast majority of people.
Several companies (including major ones like Blackrock, and TD Bank) offer US equity ETFs denominated in CAD available for purchase by Canadians. This includes some basic sector and factor options, and even some leveraged and other derivative ETFs (but expect MER >1% on these).
Your bank can most likely set you up with a "direct investing" or similarly named option (after doing some KYC stuff of course) that allows you to buy ETFs directly in a TFSA or RRSP. Or you can try a third-party service like Questrade, WealthSimple etc. It's even possible to hold options in a TFSA if you have the right paperwork, as long as you don't give the CRA the impression that you're making a "business" out of "day trading". Once you're set up it should be easy to find "some small/medium cap ETFs", for both Canadian and American (and maybe international) holdings.
tl;dr: talk to someone at your bank. Make sure it's clear you aren't looking for investment advice and want to make the decisions yourself. Or look up those third parties. (If you hold registered accounts at multiple institutions, to my understanding you will be held fully responsible for observing a total contribution limit etc. across all of them.)
> People rarely buy with a purely rational investment mindset; they buy based on lifestyle and emotion.
> If you bought a home equivalent to the apartment you’d rent, or a slight downgrade, you might come out ahead financially over five years.
This is really the key point. Everyone I've known personally who buys a home does so with the intent to "upgrade" their lifestyle. Even if they were perfectly content before in their 1000 sq ft 2 bedroom apartment, they aren't content purchasing the same size home. Instead they upgrade to a 1700 sq ft 3 bedroom home, or larger, because after all owning a home is supposed to feel better than just renting an apartment. In financial terms, they are worse off, but maybe they are happier with their spending (I'd hope).
If they want children, they’ll need more room. Same if you want/need a home office or to move an elderly parent in. I wouldn’t really classify those things as “feeling nice”, more going through natural life stages that renting a 2 bd may retard.
In current market, owning dozens of properties is not a good investment. Owning thousands is. And, in my opinion, which does not mean much, is one of the problems.
I have a friend living somewhere in the UK. He wants to buy an apartment. He has the conditions for it, but he cannot because every single building in his city belongs to the same company who keeps them to inflate the prices.
Why there is no exponential taxes for owning that many properties after they are finished?
I think a better take away from this article is that if you aren’t buying your home like an investment (looking at cash flow and prioritizing financial outcome over all other factors such as distance to work or functionality), then you shouldn’t consider your home one. You’re paying for a place to live and if it happens to be financially sound, great. Otherwise you need to accept that you might lose money on it. Somehow this has been normalized for cars but not homes.
Median first time home buyer is 35. Median first child birth age is 27. Most people buying their first home aren't looking for the flexibility to move every year.
Well. Lots of ideas there. But I just bought into a Coop because my rent went up 40% in one year. Since 2015 rents have gone up something like 50%. My experience says it’s true.
Now as an owner (of shares) I’m pegged to my mortgage (fixed) + HOA (and their scheduled increases) for the next 30y (if I choose). That’s something.
The thing about renting is, unless you’re in rent-controlled district, it can go up any amount. And in my experience, what’s advertised is always more than what you’re paying.
The fact that the author writes about his buying decision in first person singular is telling. Home "as a product" (vs investment) is contingent on your situation in life.
If you are a single person who is likely to get married and/or move for work, why would you buy? The transaction costs of buying and then selling are non trivial.
On the other hand if you are with your wife and kids, the potential ability to move for a job is less important (objectively) than community you are establishing for your kids and family. So it's not just those who value stability vs flexibility as a behavioral trait but as a realistic reflection of a situation.
It's like a bike guy becomes a minivan guy when he has 3 kids.
My current assumption is that other classes of assets, assuming technological progress continues at its current rate, will grow significantly faster than demand for land.
So the economics that once made homeownership favorable, no longer exist.
Holding the assumption that your landlord operates on favorable conditions (mine is pretty responsive and rent increases are controlled), I’m not sure I have a good reason to opt to purchase a house unless I’m planning on occupying it for the next 2 decades at minimum.
I can’t help but think purchasing is an emotional decision, unless the location you live in allows you to buy for a similar rate to the mortgage pricing, but I’ve only observed this in LCOL areas.
> My current assumption is that other classes of assets, assuming technological progress continues at its current rate, will grow significantly faster than demand for land.
You seemed to have missed one unique attribute of land. They’re not making any more of it.
Any "house" would be too big for me by myself. And buying a condo apartment seems like a strange proposition to me; compared to renting the same space, it seems like just paying extra in order to accumulate some nebulous equity at the end of the term. I'd rather do that with more liquid asset classes.
This article seems to present surface level arguments that aren't entirely fleshed out very well. Ex: what is the actual emotional impact of renting vs buying as that seems like it is the core underlying argument being made. I think the argument presented is dubious specifically because rents are a non fixed cost and provide no direct guaranteed long term benefit. Even as someone that purchased in 2021 with a price locked in from 2020, rents in my area are now equivalent or higher and it only took 2 years for the rent to catch up!. The graph tells the story that others are pointing out:
The author disclaims that he's not a homeowner at the very end of the article, but these types of pieces steelmanning renting always read to me as thinly veiled pleas of "please exit the market so I can have more".
this is one of those where sheer facts and numbers can be interpreted either way and more
so (in my opinion) than most other “arguments” it is almost impossible
to change someone’s opinion once it formed.
I once spent 1/2 my Sunday trying to convince my best friend that he would have financially been better off if he rented (he paid off his house which he can sell today for $2,000,000) - I came with receipts (pun intended) showing how he would
have been significantly better off if he rented and invested in the market but to no avail :)
I took the middle way. I bought an RV and I rent the space I keep it in. I can move to a new park if I want and there are several counties where you can live in an RV while building a home or you can just permanently live in an RV.
I get good flexibility and value for my dollar. The savings over renting is insane.
Home prices have dramatically exceeded inflation for a long time, so you're getting advice from people who reaped huge appreciation gains. Now housing prices are hitting affordability limits, interest rates are less appealing, so it's unclear if the future will look like the past.
Interest rates for home-ownership are a ratchet, though. If they ever go down (and they do fluctuate over the course of decades), and you are financially stable (this may or may not be the case at the right time) you can generally refinance to lock-in the lower rate.
The tax advantage is only available for people that itemize. Only about 10% of taxpayers do so. Inflation protection is very real and important though.
As someone who's both renting and has bought (renting my main flat and bought a summer flat), I think I prefer buying. I'm always living in fear of being told I have to leave, and the flexibility is overrated because everyone I've talked to tends to just like where they happened to live. Everyone generally finds the positives of their current area to be the positives they really like, and the negatives manageable.
This means that, generally, no matter where you buy, you won't want to have bought anywhere else after a few years. There are cases where you might hate it, of course, but you could still sell/rent to someone else and buy/rent elsewhere.
I can say I'm very much on the other side now after owning (and unfortunately still owning) a townhome that I used to love living in but now can't seem to get rid of in Seattle while I rent across the country. I moved for work and really wish I had been renting since I do not want the hassle of being a landlord, but Seattle townhome sales have slowed to a crawl as the city never really recovered after covid.
If you get unlucky with no reason to still be in a particular city and that city starts a downward swing, there's no gaurantee it ever comes back and you're stuck taking care of something that you might never be able to sell for anything but a loss.
I will likely stay a renter and keep that flexibility in my new city for a long time after this experience.
I feel like real estate markets have way to much variance country to country, city to city, or even neighborhood to neighborhood, to make generalizations like this.
My spouse and I quite like where I am now, but I don't want to buy something here due to rates, insurance and future potential of the city. So, I've pretty much settled on buying something small in another city and renting it out while we rent here.
I think this might be a good balance to get us some type of flexibility while also diversifying our assets. But now the problem is trying to find a decent rental property in another city :p
Pretty lacking in math for an article that mentions math a few times.
I looked into this a few years ago when I was trying to see if we were really in the worst housing market ever, and came to the opposite conclusion.
https://arriens.us/articles/housing.html
The TL;DR is that the value of renting vs. buying has a lot to do with being realistic and understanding real estate and investments in general.
Buying a house is often an emotionally motivated decision with many important risk factors... Were inspections comprehensive and thorough or did they overlook an issue with the foundation, wiring, plumbing, etc.? Did the buyer understand the required disclosures, and specifically understand what the seller is not obligated to disclose in their jurisdiction? (e.g., in many areas the seller is not obligated to disclose if a child sex offender lives next door). Is the neighborhood up and coming or struggling?
Getting these wrong can easily negate the potential upsides of ownership.
Renting can also be great, but as the article points out, if it mostly just results in more disposable cash, then you may be better off owning (forced savings). Rental properties often cannot be sublet and also cannot be used as collateral or passed on to family members with a step-up in basis. Rental leases also fluctuate with the market, so it's not uncommon in big cities for renters to be paying close or equal prices of their homeowners next door.
Anecdotally I know many folks who have rented their way through, invested wisely, and done well. I also know folks who have moved around the US and always purchased, did their homework, capitalized on tax incentives, and now have a stable of rental properties that helped them become FIRE.
There used to be a world where you could get INTO the investment with almost free money. You can't get a 2% loan and dump it into the stock market. Well you can't do either anymore but you used to be able to :)
“Hey I’ve got an idea. We’re always talking about good investments. What if we came up with the worst possible investment we can construct? What might that look like?”
Well, let’s see now (pulling out our lined yellow pad), let’s make a list. To be really terrible:
- It should be not just an initial, but if we do it right, a relentlessly ongoing drain on the cash reserves of the owner.
- It should be illiquid. We’ll make it something that takes weeks, no – wait – even better, months of time and effort to buy or sell.
- It should be expensive to buy and sell. We’ll add very high transaction costs. Let’s say 5% commissions on the deal, coming and going.
- It should be complex to buy or sell. That way we can ladle on lots of extra fees and reports and documents we can charge for.
- It should generate low returns. Certainly no more than the inflation rate. Maybe a bit less.
- It should be leveraged! Oh, oh this one is great! This is how we’ll get people to swallow those low returns! If the price goes up a little bit, leverage will magnify this and people will convince themselves it’s actually a good investment! Nah, don’t worry about it. Most will never even consider that leverage is also very high risk and could just as easily wipe them out."
In my experience there is a real difference between the places available to rent and to buy. It is not an idealized single good with a spectrum of prices that line up cleanly with quality.
Being 47 and still renting I think the piece missed a big issue, which is most prevalent these days: we cannot afford to buy. Anything. Anywhere.
I reckon I’m fatally doomed to renting.
I travel around the US and Canada in my campervan and I've noticed that it feels like a lot more people live in RV's now, which enables you to buy something and park it nearly anywhere (location wise) that you can find space. There are RV parks all over. Depending on where you decide to be, it probably isn't a bad solution and worth considering if you do want to own something, but don't want or can't commit to a whole house.
There is one unmentioned far future benefit: if you pay your mortgage off before retirement you'll probably enjoy more shelter security than your peers. Rent is a monthly cost (eating into your retirement) that could skyrocket (which your retirement plans may not have accounted for).
Of course, a solid investment plan may offset these - but only a domicile (doesn't need to be a house) would survive everything related to the economy going to utter hell.
I agree about houses, though. A saner plan may be to purchase a modest apartment or the like, that you keep in the wings until you reach retirement.
That's... really not correct. And the section that follows the heading doesn't talk about (or even try to define) "investments" at all.
A home mortgage is a heavily (!) subsidized, very safe, easily-acquired and extremely leveraged investment in an asset class that tends over long terms to grow as well as anything else.
A young professional looking at a putting $100k into stocks or as downpayment on a $500k (!) mortgage is just a no brainer. Fast forward 20 years and the 5x is applied to all the appreciation.
Buy homes, folks. Worry about renting only when you're old and are making the decision as to whether to by your fifth home for cash or to finance and put the money into another asset class. The only time you decide not to is when you know a priori you can't hold the property long enough to cover the purchase overhead.
(That said: there are lots of macroeconomic and environmental reasons to think a culture where everyone should buy a home is a bad thing. But in our culture, everyone should buy a home.)
The comments here are making some odd assumptions:
1) That buying implies owning your own top-to-bottom house, with no adjacent neighbors.
2) That renting necessarily comes with arbitrary rent increases and risks of eviction.
3) That mixed communities of buyers and renters are uncommon.
None of these is necessarily true if you live in a city, depending on the city. It sounds like a lot of people are actually comparing “living in an apartment/condo” to “moving out to the suburbs,” not renting vs. owning.
"The flexibility of renting has major financial advantages"
Like 80% of my motivation to make money in past was: to buy a house. I have no interest in FIRE and be a couch surfing digital nomad around the world or whatever.
So it's hard for me to be motivated by the financial aspect if the end result was no house for now basically.
I'm currently in the bay area in a 1950s home with no AC, no insulation, and single pane windows. Do you think that's what I want? No but I can't change it because that's what is mostly available on the rental market in the peninsula. If you go into buying, you can find all kinds of well appointed homes (even brand new homes). No one updates rentals here. So, at a certain point, if you want to live like you're not in the 1950s anymore (and lord knows - we are not living in the 1950s climate, holy shit it's way hotter) then you have to buy.
All else being equal, a house is too personal a thing for me to rent. It would be like renting a complete set of clothes.
I don’t want to be a real estate developer writ large, but I do want to develop my own space and optimize it for my family as it grows and changes over time.
That's fair. I was mainly trying to push back against the idea that owning a home is always a good investment. There are definitely other major advantages to owning a home.
My mortgage is $1900 a month and I am extremely grateful for that, because it's been that for three years. I chose to buy so that I could have more predictability in my housing costs, and maybe someday I'll move, but then I'll rent it out. All that to say, if you can buying is infinitely better.
At least 10^7 people have refinanced their homes at lower rates, while only 10^5 people have won the lottery. So refinancing is substantially more likely than lottering.
This is just propaganda to push people to cope and be part of a renter class that gets screwed over by a homeowner class.
No, don't be emotional, don't buy your own place and have stability. Own nothing and be happy! Let the corporations own everything and have "flexibility (TM)"
I like the general idea of this post but in the end I think it suffers from being too generalized and a little bit too renting biased.
> The math can always be made to “work” if you’re willing to adjust what or where you buy.
This is essentially a useless statement, the result of the math is either that either renting or buying makes you end up more wealthy. Whether it "works" or not isn't even the question, the question is which choice makes you more wealthy over time (more on that later).
For that, it's more helpful to use a rent vs. buy calculator [1] with the details of your market plugged in. Whether renting or buying makes more sense for you has a lot to do with where you live.
Let's continue on to the next section, "Buying a Home Isn’t Really an Investment."
The obvious rebuttal to this is "of course it is!"
> The decision is usually driven by lifestyle factors such as proximity to work, school districts, family, and the neighborhood.
All of these factors play in to whether or not the property is a good investment. Places that are in good school districts and have close proximity to job centers are good investments. The real estate investors that this section mentions think about these exact same things before starting projects.
Next section: "People Tend to Overbuy." Is there any data or evidence behind this whole paragraph? Are we just saying that people who own homes buy more furniture and stuff than renters? Maybe they do, but even if that's true could that be because they're more wealthy in the first place? Who knows, this entire paragraph is all assumptions and nothing backing it up.
Next section: "The Flexibility of Renting Is Undervalued"
6/10 Americans live within 10 miles of where they grew up, and 8/10 Americans live within 100 miles of where they grew up. [2] Is the flexibility of renting actually needed for most Americans? Are Americans missing out on job promotions because they own homes? (It's not like you can't sell a home quickly)
I would counter the premise of this section with "The stability of home ownership is undervalued" and "the 30-year fixed mortgage is a gigantic subsidy to homebuyers." By taking out a mortgage, homeowners are locking in the majority of their monthly cost with the exception of maintenance, utilities, and property taxes. They sit in their house for a few years and they end up paying below market on monthly payment compared to renters. So maybe they "overbought" a home with too many bedrooms to fit all phases of life, but it doesn't really matter because after the first ~5-10 years of home ownership they are going to be paying less than market-rate rentals.
The 30-year fixed mortgage allows homeowners to refinance and minimize their rate pretty much any time the rate drops, so basically every renter is always getting the lowest rate possible since from their purchase date forward, and it never goes up.
The last section: Why the Home Investment Myth Persists
Sure, this section is technically correct, someone investing money elsewhere is going to beat real estate on returns. But you can't live in an index fund, an index fund may not have the same protections [a] and tax incentives as a home, and it is a fact that most people are not disciplined with investments which means the forced investment of a mortgage's end result is that homeowners are far more wealthier than renters on average. [3]
[a] For example, your home equity doesn't count toward the ability to pay calculation for FAFSA, and you are generally protected from having your home taken away from you if you get into most debt situations. Check out how OJ Simpson avoided paying his civil judgment: https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/how-did-oj-simpson-avoi...
I am a home owner since 1998 I think that none of you arguments against owning make sense to me. To me your writing reads like following: due to the world gone crazy I can no longer afford to buy house so let's concoct some soul soothing reason and pretend that all is fine.
I assure you I pay a lot more than just the real estate tax (and insurance). There's a ton of maintenance in general. Even with insurance, I was just out a good $50K with a middle of the night kitchen fire.
Because they purchased. And they stayed there. I think people forget that boomers bought their houses 20 30, 40 years ago, and they stayed there. It's not like they bought it 10 years ago and all of a sudden it went up dramatically. I don't think a lot of people consider that longer timeline, it's just easier to blame "boomers."
And the stability of buying is undervalued. It's telling that this article frames housing as an investment vehicle rather than as a basic necessity. And it's not just a necessity because it shelters you from the elements and gives you storage for your stuff; it anchors you in a neighborhood and allows you to begin forming a local community. The flexibility of renting that this article glorifies is itself anathema to knowing and befriending your neighbors on anything but the shortest of terms; even if you don't intend to move, you have no guarantee that they won't up and exercise that flexibility. This is a major contributor to the modern loneliness epidemic.
This just doesn't happen as often with apartments, where people are more transient and more likely to be single and/or childless.
80% of Eastern Europe, for example, would disagree with you.
Befriending your neighbors kind of works in a city but only REALLY works in Amish communities.
However, I think this depends highly on the personality of the renter/owner, and that is the point this article misses.
If someone is, like myself, comfortable with risks, I'm ok with changing neighbors, locations, and I've lived on 3 different continents and 9 cities?
If you're someone who craves stability, then this isn't for you, and you're proably better off buying a house.
It depends.
Personally, after witnessing both sides of the coin second-hand, I am not leaning in the direction of either buying or renting in absolute. It is highly dependent on the context and circumstances of a specific situation/market.
I am aware that this is just an anecdote (i.e., it isn't going to say much about the overall state of things across all states in the US), but there is a specific example I'd witnessed myself, which led me to believe that this is a bit more complicated than just "renting is the move" and "buying is the move."
TLDR: one of my former coworkers bought a condo in Queen Anne neighborhood of Seattle (which is a highly desirable and expensive neighborhood in that metro area). Within the first year of his ownership, the pipes behind his laundry machine burst due to no fault of his own (while he was at work), and it ended up flooding the apartment of the neighbor below. It decimated the flooring of both his own unit and the unit of the neighbor below. He ended up was facing the costs of unfucking his own condo AND the unit below.
I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head at all (as the whole thing happened around 2018-2019, and I wasn't really involved in any direct way at all), but I remember that he did the math and (based upon the numbers, reasonably) ended up selling his condo as soon as he'd finished fixing his own unit + paying for the fixes to the unit below.
Meanwhile, I am currently renting, and if the pipes in my unit burst and end up flooding the neighbors below, it would be mostly the problem of the property management company running my building to deal with, not mine. This alone make me feel way more stable than if I'd owned the unit I live in atm.
Anecdote of my own: The last place we rented before buying had a minor roof leak. Minor, but still a roof leak. The landlord was old, her daughter was responsible for a lot of stuff, and they were both remote for at least part of the year. It took 3 years for them to finally get the roof replaced, evidently about a year after we left.
And these were good landlords. They took care of a bunch of minor disasters in good time: dishwasher, washing machine, thermostats for the baseboard electric heat, stack vent got clobbered by ice coming off the roof? All dealt with promptly. But the roof, important though it was, wasn't a big enough problem to merit quick attention. The place was a log home, and by appearances, hadn't been subjected to any kind of refinishing for a good while too.
There are definitely tons of pros that come from renting from small/individual landlords (e.g., potentially tiny/non-existent monthly rental cost increases over the years; I have an acquaintance who managed to keep the same lease price [which was already extremely low for the neighborhood] for about 3 years now in LES neighborhood of Manhattan).
However, what you described is precisely one of my biggest personal concerns, hence why I tend to stick with larger/property-management-company-run properties+buildings that are, in general, newer. I discovered that it is much easier to get property management companies to get things like that done. In fact, after some of my current neighbors complained enough about elevator outages over the past month (for context: the building is 30 floors tall and has 3 elevators, but we recently had multiple weeks where only one elevator was functional, which led to large elevator lines and slow service), everyone automatically got a $500 credit applied to their next rent payment.
There are A LOT of costs which are not explicit when owning a condo.
Honestly I have such low trust in the ability for humans to plan for the future over the now. It is like a bug in our psychology.
Most home owners don’t do this either, but it’s pretty much the same thing short of an association leaving stuff so long it ends up being more expensive overall.
Stuff like siding isn’t really all that hard to predict - it typically has a useful life and easy to calculate like a roof. Might get lucky or unlucky but it all averages out in the end over time. If you’re not saving/spending about 2% of your property value each year for maintenance you are almost always running on hopes and prayers.
Granted, the outlier cases a condo owner has far less control over the situation- including neglect to the point of building collapse.
As a homeowner I have definitely had some 5 figure costs over the years that were totally unexpected and several in the low 5 figure range that really needed to be done. Doesn't mean I couldn't cover them in some way shape or form but they happened.
hoas only make sense to me in condo situations - but even then you’re at the mercy of others
But in the US it usually implies neighbors above and below and on the sides.
I chalk up the difference to the fact that a lot of people my age couldn’t afford to live where I moved so my neighborhood is full of wealthier older people who I have nothing in common with.
We need, as a society, to bring back generational communities.
Our workplaces are not our families!
I'll also add, that once you have children, owning your home is a very welcome level of stability.
Nothing worse than looking for a new rental and potentially being forced to upend all your routines and find new schools for the kids as you cant rent in the same area anymore!
I think this is the biggest factor if it applies. If we want to be utilitarian about it, the benefit to your kids of having the same school to attend, same neighbors to play with, same room to call their own and paint the walls as they desire, etc. just dwarfs everything else. Kids just do well in stable, predictable home environments.
owning does not shield you from shit like that, maybe in rural america but definitely not in/around the cities
You brought up a good point though, and that’s the trap of being house poor. Too many owners fail to look / have not been taught to factor local property taxes and maintenance costs into their homes. My network definitely has people caught unaware by escrow shortages, siding costs, roof costs, HVAC stack costs.
Despite it all, US homeowners seem to edge out renters, but it doesn’t have to be causative, either.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AS...
and while its not necessarily wrong, I believe it under weights a few points:
- Fixing your housing costs against inflation: You can't count on housing price increases, but you can count on inflation. If you buy a house and your mortgage payment is > rent. Overtime it will naturally flip. $1 no longer buys me a chocolate bar, and $800/month no longer gets me a 2 bed apartment.
- Leverage: I can't get a $700k loan to put into equities but I can for a home.
- Capital Battery: As I build equity in my home it can become an asset I take loans against to pursue other opportunities.
- Flexibility: Should I need to fiscally downsize I can still move out and rent out. Or rent a portion either via a suite or secondary unit
- Stability: No one can evict me into a hot rental market to suit their needs.
I wish more people talked about these points, selfishly so I didnt take so many of these articles at face value because in hindsight I wouldve bought earlier.
Any sort of serious buy vs rent calculator already takes this into account, for instance the one on nytimes
>- Capital Battery: As I build equity in my home it can become an asset I take loans against to pursue other opportunities.
That feels absolutely insane to me, especially when you consider that by the time you built up significant amounts of equity you'll have significant commitments (eg. college age kids) and/or be close to retirement. Going 3x on S&P500 might be justified when you're a new grad, but not beyond your 30s.
>- Flexibility: Should I need to fiscally downsize I can still move out and rent out. Or rent a portion either via a suite or secondary unit
How is this more flexible than the counterfactual of renting?
I read that as "similarly flexible" not "more flexible".
The bank can, if you take out too many loans against your house that you can’t pay back. When you barrow against your house you’re increasing your risk.
“Rational people don’t risk what they have and need for what they don’t have and don’t need.” - Warren Buffett
My house is paid off now and I can’t think of anything that would make me barrow against it. Setting aside variable maintenance costs, with only having to worry about property taxes now, I could work at Costco and make ends meet now. That gives me some peace of mind against an uncertain job market. A loan against the house would change that equation wildly.
If this is still accurate, a third of renters could theoretically be told the rent is doubling or learning the lease is ending. Depending on the health of the market, that can be a major risk, and not everyone can or wants the flexibility of a rental at all times.
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2022/housing-leases-in-the-u-s...
Renting it out is also not always gauranteed or easy if you are not nearby or don't want to deal with being a landlord, so imho that flexibility is not really there in many cases.
Paying perpetual interest on a non-productive asset doesn't sound like a good idea, to me.
Many countries tax systems give home owners preferential tax treatment for the primary home. I'll give an example from Australia:
The Australian age pension is means tested - there's a test of both income and assets. If your income and/or assets are too high, you get no age pension. But homeowners benefit from special treatment: A retired couple who own a home are eligible for the full aged pension if their assets excluding the value of their home are worth at most AUD 481.5k. A retired couple who are not homeowners are eligible for the full aged pension if their assets are worth at most AUD 749.5k.
For the purposes of getting a public funded aged pension or not, the value of the home is deemed to be about AUD 270k regardless of its actual market value -- contrast that with the median price of a home in Sydney being about AUD 1.6m!
Back of the envelope comparison:
Retired couple with paid off house worth $1.6m in Sydney, budget of $5k / yr for council rates and insurance + $16k/yr (1% of $1.6m median home value, say) as budget for home maintenance. Suppose our couple also have $481.5k in financial assets outside of the home generating a 4% real return, the max amount they can have as homeowners for the full age pension. Gross income from financial assets and full aged pension is $60,470. Housing costs are 35% of gross income, leaving 65% of gross income -- $39,470 to pay non housing living expenses.
Compare with a retired couple in Sydney who have the same net worth -- $2081.5k -- except all in financial assets, not home owners. Suppose they rent a 2 bed apartment in Sydney at $900 / week. They are not eligible for any age pension as their non-home financial assets exceed the means-tested assets cap of $1.37m for a part pension for a couple who don't own a home. Their gross income from financial assets, assuming a 4% real return, is $83.26k. Their housing costs from renting are $46.8k / yr, leaving them with $36,460 to pay non housing living expenses.
So, of the two couples with identical net worths, the couple with most of their wealth concentrated in the $1.6m sydney house has about 8% extra cash to spend on non housing living expenses, and gets to enjoy the benefit of living in a house vs a 2 bed apartment, and also enjoys the additional stability in their retirement years with no way a landlord can suddenly force them to move.
The calculation above ignores income tax. But - if we assume both couples have their financial assets parked in tax advantaged retirement accounts (Australia's superannuation system), then their retirement income streams from these financial assets is tax free, and although the age pension is taxable income, the couple receiving the age pension wouldn't expect to pay any income tax, due to the tiered progressive tax rates and additional tax offsets for seniors and pensioners.
Exactly, and most people wouldn't even be able to get half of that for investing in a business that turns a profit and employs local people. So that's why all money is rushing into real estate and the industrial world is dying now. And death is forever.
I've been a homeowner for 30 years and am now renting a temporary apartment in a new location. There's a lot of upside of renting. I don't like apartment living at all, but I don't feel anchored to the location at all and have the freedom to live wherever without a bunch of overhead. I'm definitely spending more money per square foot renting, and obviously none of this is coming back to myself or my family, but that's ok for me right now.
I think my main takeaway is that there is no rule about what is best. It's what's right for you at that time of your life. A house is nice when you have kids and want some stability. Renting is nice when you want freedom and flexibility.
Money is a means to an end, and being happy is a fine end. I only live once and if I can be happy, well then I've pretty much won. Also you're not going to "get rich" by renting, if (and it's a huge if) you can somehow make renting work in your financial favor compared to buying, it's going to be a tiny bit better. You're not going to 10X your income renting.
He also completely discounts the cost of moving constantly (aka "flexibility"), movers, deposits, furnishings... it's not cheap. Yeah you can move yourself (add in the cost of vehicle to make that happen) but it's going to take time, and time is money.
This is not a well thought out article.
From a purely financial perspective, I think you could say: the more protections you as a renter receive, the more renting makes sense.
Living in Germany, I do have quite a few protections as a renter. My landlord can't arbitrarily hike prices, etc. In my current city, it would be absolutely impossible to get a mortgage anywhere close to my current monthly rent (even with substantial equity)
A few years ago, I became quite interested in buying an apartment in Germany for rental income. My German friends thought it was a terrible idea. After reading more about it, I realized it would have been a huge mistake!
My opinion is the issue with renting and housing in general is the world wide financialization of real estate. It's being treated as a primary investment instead of the secondary investment it is. Some fraction of people are getting exceedingly wealthy but there are deep negative effects.
My bet is the crashing fertility rates are likely what's going to put a stop to it. Notable every 15-20 years we have a bigger than the previous financial crisis. Once populations start to decline the bottom will fall out.
This quote makes real estate "investors", banks and the government tax revenue service drool over how hard you would work to guarantee your children's future. You're up against soulless, calculating cowards who are more than willing to live themselves in misery for the chance to suck your blood.
As the rent prices keep rising, the renter in the end will end up spending much more money in the same duration as a mortgage, won't they? After a few years, when they end up owning more of the property, they can secure a good deal with better monthly mortgage payments.
They can also quite easily set up an AirBnB or get proper renters, if they want to have some flexibility, and in most cases the rent money will be more than the mortgage payments, so if they want to rent another place of their liking, the additional income will offset the monthly costs.
this touches on something the author sorta hinted at, mortgage as a forced investment. Some buyers/renters won't view the down payment as an investment opportunity if they go the path of renting, they decide to rent and suddenly theyve got a new car loan and all new furniture or whatever, and that down payment is gone, instead of compounding year over year in an attempt to make renting a financial advantage
you can usually napkin math investing the down payment and it makes more financial sense to rent, but from a human perspective its just not gonna happen like that for so many people. they are gonna mess with that money instead.
Here where I live the minimum price for rent is monthly mortgage installement, meaning that you'll pay for rent at least as much as you'd pay for mortgage.
But after you pay your mortgage you still have an asset in your hand. You can pass it on to your children or you can sell it when you're old, downsize (or even rent) and get some cash for your retirement. If you rent you're left with nothing.
Then why is not everyone buying? Because few people can afford the 20% downpayement needed for mortgage. In reality it's even more because you have to furnish and/or renovate the place.
Renting has it's charm for youngsters, but once you get older and you start acummulating things the lack of stability and the danger of your landlord having a change of heart and breaking the contract (either because he decided to sell it or give it to a child) becomes a pain in the ass. Even having a pet is troublesome and many property owners will refuse to rent if you have a dog or a cat.
Well, no. You're left with the cash you would've spent buying a house.
Whether that's financially better or worse, depends entirely on the mortgage interest, taxes, and maintenance costs of the house, as well as the money you could have earned investing the cash elsewhere, compared to the rent you would have spent over the same time period.
Ben Felix, a popular financial YouTuber, made many a video about the math:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=lBG-g1CKfgs
I could have bought 15 years before I did. But because rent was less than half a mortgage (not even including maintenance), I was able to put that extra money into the market and save enough for more than a down payment on a forever home vs starter home when I was ready.
It’s certainly not like for like, but it would have been a poor financial decision to buy vs rent.
Where I live now this math is more or less inverted. Makes more sense to buy vs rent.
In the end your primary residence is a lifestyle decision, not a financial one. It’s not an investment in the traditional sense. It’s speculation at best.
I have never seen a 1br costing anywhere near as much to rent as a 3br costs to buy. In what markets is this even remotely close to accurate? Or are you just ignoring the cost of ownership entirely?
My landlord for 15 years raised rent exactly once when property taxes had a large jump one year, and was already under market when I started the first lease.
His mortgage was long paid off and he optimized for least hassle vs max money. Worked out for both of us - I called him maybe once a year at most, and he had a decent passive income stream reliably come in without worrying about 2am phone calls because a $50 thermostat broke. He had a nicely appreciated property to sell in his eventual retirement.
It was a 3BR place with a yard larger than I own now. Granted fit and finish is nowhere comparable, but I pay about 4x in mortgage and taxes than what I was paying him for about 1.5x the space.
Such arrangements are increasingly more rare as everything becomes a finance game, but they can still be sought out and developed.
If you want to compare the costs of renting and buying, you need to compare renting=(rent payments + renter’s insurance) vs. owning=(mortgage payments + property taxes + insurance + maintenance and repairs + equity appreciation / depreciation)
> Average rents are cheaper than average mortgage payments (homeowners insurance and property taxes included) in all 50 of the largest U.S. metros in 2025, with the cost difference between the two growing in all but 12 of those metros since last year, according to Bankrate’s Rent vs. Buy Study.
> Over the last year, the study found average mortgage payments (including principal, interest, homeowners insurance and property taxes) increased while average rents either declined or remained stable in nearly all the metros we analyzed.
> Housing experts said the fact that it’s cheaper to rent in all 50 metros in 2025 is a broader reflection of rental and housing market conditions across the country.
[1] https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/rent-vs-buy-affordabili...
The average mortgage is for a family, the average rent is for a broke young worker or student living in a much smaller and worse accommodation.
Renting is always more expensive than a mortgage for the same housing unit, because the landlord needs to make a profit from his tenants.
Cooking the numbers won't change reality. The truth beats all the lies, no matter how many lies.
Even a basic Google search would have saved you needing to post that comment.
[1]https://www.zillow.com/research/renters-housing-trends-repor...
Which tells us exactly what the GP brought up: renters are younger than buyers.
For the same accommodation, renting is always more expensive than owning.
This is a common case. I recently sold a house with a mortgage where my carrying costs were far below that of any buyer of the house, meaning I could break-even renting at a rate that would leave a new buyer losing thousands of dollars per month. You'd be an idiot to not rent in that market but there is no shortage of buyers.
There are many markets where the rental rates are far below mortgage costs for long periods of time.
>Renting has it's charm for youngsters
You're sort of contradicting yourself. So long as you think you're sort of settled in an area, buying is probably better.
But, if it's your first job out of school, even if you have a nice bunch of money you could put towards a down payment, it's not clear that buying is a great idea except maybe if you're in an area with lots of jobs for your chosen profession.
Once I bought, somewhat belatedly, I was in an area that offered enough possibilities in my (broadly speaking) field even if a couple commutes were on the long side.
In most cases people will need to get a half decent job and save for a few years first but they can keep saving and have enough for another property in few years.
And if you really have to move - then you can still sell that property. People are getting new cars every 2-3 years and it's not that different from swapping real estate.
Of course it is. I think the average American car age is 11 years or something like that. But, if I wanted to swap cars like that, I can go into a dealer and basically transact it in 30 minutes. Good luck doing that with a house.
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/03/homes-buyers-sellers-redfin
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUUS
When it was a sellers’ market, I knew people who sold in days, and buyers who lost out offering 50, 75k over asking price. Today, not so much.
My thought experiment is basically: If I get a new job in a new city, is it smart buy a house right away? And if the answer is not always "yes", then obviously buying is not always the best option.
Where I live, interest payments alone exceed the rental rate for the same property even if you could afford a 20% downpayment. Those interest payments are a total loss. No amount of contortions can make those numbers pencil out where ownership is beneficial to the buyer. As it happens I now rent but I recently sold my house because it didn't make sense even though my carrying costs were far lower than any new buyer.
By the time you pay off a mortgage, a renter could afford to buy the same property for cash with money left over.
When you own, the mortgage payment is the floor on your monthly cash outlay. by contrast, when you rent, the rent is the ceiling on your monthly cash outlay. So even when they are identical, homeownership is way costlier because of all the other costs one "forgets" to consider while making this comparison. HOA dues, home insurance, property tax, maintenance, etc. add up to thousands of dollars each year. As a renter, you don't have to consider any of these beyond your rent.
As a renter, all of these are baked into your rent :/
Current state of the British economy is the state is looking to allow 40yr 5% deposit mortgages. We're not quite there yet but it's heading that way. Be very thankful if your country isn't that bad!
Recently, our government is making a change to allow first homebuyers to purchase properties with only a 5% deposit.
Historically the Australian government set up the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation in '67, to provide insurance for banks against the risk of borrowers defaulting, to support home buyers. In 1997 the Howard government privatised the HLIC by selling it to GE, and we've had a private sector for mortgage insurance since, compulsory if borrowers are borrowing more than 80%.
Now in 2025 the current Albanese government is rolling out a scheme where the government will act as a public mortgage insurer again to allow first home buyers to buy with only a 5% deposit.
I'm not quite sure what to think. I heard an economist interviewed who reckoned this was a great idea to make it easier for young people to get into the property market, arguing that Aussie homeowners historically hardly ever default on mortgages. But naively it seems like this is yet another change that is going to push up house prices even further by increasing demand, without doing something to increase supply.
I also wonder if systemic mortgage default risk appears like it is lower than it actually is because Australia has been lucky enough to escape a major recession for so long.
I think giving the government an interest in keeping house prices high is an awful idea and we should get over this obsession with homeownership.
a government with an actual serious policy to increase housing supply, which should cause housing prices to fall, might have a lot of trouble getting elected or staying elected (only 1/3 of australian households rent, but that'll increase over time due to wealth inequality)
If this had been framed differently, it would be more interesting. Instead it comes across as universal (“most people won’t saved unless forced to”) and ignores the many many benefits of buying. (Not mentioning 5x leverage on a historically good asset is willful ignorance)
As a former renter of 20 years, these are great points that everyone should evaluate. As someone for whom home ownership made sense now, I wish I had been able to prioritize those factors earlier as it would have been nice to have my mortgage locked in at 2010 prices.
My current city in central Europe is very renter-friendly. A nice apartment would cost $600k, but rents practically never exceed $1500/month. Under such circumstances an apartment doesn't seem like a great investment.
I've also lived, briefly, in Canada -- where rents were often extremely high relative to home prices. (I have a friend who pays $300/month on a mortgage and rents the place out for $2000/month. At the same time, the house has nearly tripled in value over the past ~7 years.)
I don't doubt you or your friend, but their situation was unique.
That said, he was often trying to show off, so who knows.
I was in a one bedroom apartment, so not like-for-like, but I didn’t need or want anymore space than I had. I was also in a nice area, and in the nicest apartments in that area, as far as I could tell.
A couple people who moved out there when I did bought places, and I heard nothing but regrets from them a year later.
Statistically, I’m in the top ~5% of income earners (from the data I can find), with no debt, and I couldn’t afford $6k/month.
I bought a house because I don't understand the rental market anymore. I don’t really like being a home owner, but the rent prices these days are so out of hand. I think the most I ever paid for rent was $1,680 and I felt irresponsible doing that. I don’t know how all these rentals are full with the prices they’re charging. Does everyone have roommates?
So, yes, $6k per month is house-poor numbers, but it’s workable for sure. If you’re even better off, good for you, it may fall into affordable range.
Maybe I’m conservative, but being house poor while making $300k is insane.
I’m thinking someone would need to be pushing $400-500k for household income. That would put them in the top 3%. I don’t get the supply and demand curve on it. Making that much, and renting. It’s an even smaller market than the full 3%.
6k for a mortgage would be scary in case of job loss, but for rent, whatever, just move.
Plus, if a sizable portion of that household income is in the form of stock or a bonus, that isn’t showing up each month in the paycheck, lowering the monthly cash flow. If there is a layoff early in the year before the bonus pays out, and you can’t exit the lease, that would be a bad spot to be in.
There is still risk on the table, depending on how some of this is structured.
Here a variable rate is norm and has been since I remember.
I was eyeballing a particular house with specific financing in mind just before covid started, and if I'd pull a trigger on that transaction my monthly payement would more than double at some point.
Half of American renters are cost burdened, for example.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43119657
(own my primary US residence free and clear, my housing savings goes into investments, which grow faster than inflation)
This is done to allow people to age in place, and not price someone out of a neighborhood they’ve live in all their life.
some parts of california have been affected by insurers more than others, but in those more minimally affected? prop tax is suppressed via prop 13 (for better or worse), and the cost of insurance is a drop in the bucket relative to what id be paying for a roof over my head otherwise tbh
my life cannot be uprooted based on the whims of a crummy landlord or because my obligation has crept out of my budget
i bought conservatively and now have a tiny payment relative to what i’d otherwise have to pay to live in the bay area. peace of mind is hard to put a price on
The main advantage of a house imo is that you can't typically rent something comparable, at least where I've lived. The rental market for 4 bedroom houses is tiny compared to the number for sale.
I can only imagine it makes financial sense to rent if you live somewhere where you're not paying off someone else's mortgage and are paying a fair renting price. (Otherwise paying your own mortgage just makes more sense)
As an actual honest question, where in the world is like that any more?
Every time I see someone arguing about minimum wage, their benchmark seems to be having a 2 bedroom apartment, not a studio or even a 1 bedroom. I find this wildly unrealistic.
Apartments also sell people on amenities that almost no one uses, but justify higher rent prices.
These luxury apartments are used in the same way people use their over-bought homes. It’s a way to buy into a different class of neighbors, feel like you’re not sacrificing with a rental, signal to others that you’re doing well, ideally have better management/maintenance, and live in a place that out-classes the home they may otherwise buy… all with no maintenance or investment.
I’ve seen some crazy rent prices. I’m not sure who is renting these places, but someone must be, because they keep building them.
I prefer renting, but I ended up buying a house because rent prices starting going up beyond what I felt with reasonable.
When I didn't like mowing the hill behind my house, I had a retaining wall put in. Also preserving the elevated deck.
When I found i didn't like the elevated deck, I build a new ground level one with my father in law.
I'm not sure I like entering into the kitchen so I'll probably put a door into the porch instead.
I'm not saying I couldn't just rent a new place to find better digs. But I hate moving, hate shopping for new houses, love this yard and house in general, and am not paying more month to month than I was when renting (and get much more space for the dollar).
I don't want this place to make me rich, in the above you might get a sense that I already feel content. That's my decision criteria and I don't know why that's incorrect. You don't have to run a household like an investment company.
It currently only profitable only of ppl who got super lucky during covid .
I don't see how your statement follows at all. I'm sure landlords would prefer rents to be higher than their mortgage but that will be determined by supply and demand, not their desires. The housing market is huge, with lots of alternatives and competition, so you can't exactly price fix it either.
The most convincing argument for buying housing is that it hedges you from potential large future cost of living increases. If you can’t afford repeated rent increases then the consequences will ripple through your life.
I’ve heard this pithily stated as “you are naturally short housing”.
https://thezikomoletter.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/you-are-nat...
Another newer argument is that if you think inflation could be much higher in the future, then a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is a very attractive instrument; it’s a government-financed option. May as well benefit from it while it lasts. (If rates go down you can just re-fi.)
In my country, buying a home is the only way to get cheap debt for the vast majority of people.
Detailed analyses exist, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ .
As Ben notes the tax advantaged status of primary homes has more capacity than most tax sheltered alternatives.
But a lot of this depends upon income.
This reminds me, I need to buy more DFA. :)
I want to buy some small/medium CAP ETFs but there is nothing really in Canada you can buy off the TSX.
Several companies (including major ones like Blackrock, and TD Bank) offer US equity ETFs denominated in CAD available for purchase by Canadians. This includes some basic sector and factor options, and even some leveraged and other derivative ETFs (but expect MER >1% on these).
Your bank can most likely set you up with a "direct investing" or similarly named option (after doing some KYC stuff of course) that allows you to buy ETFs directly in a TFSA or RRSP. Or you can try a third-party service like Questrade, WealthSimple etc. It's even possible to hold options in a TFSA if you have the right paperwork, as long as you don't give the CRA the impression that you're making a "business" out of "day trading". Once you're set up it should be easy to find "some small/medium cap ETFs", for both Canadian and American (and maybe international) holdings.
tl;dr: talk to someone at your bank. Make sure it's clear you aren't looking for investment advice and want to make the decisions yourself. Or look up those third parties. (If you hold registered accounts at multiple institutions, to my understanding you will be held fully responsible for observing a total contribution limit etc. across all of them.)
> If you bought a home equivalent to the apartment you’d rent, or a slight downgrade, you might come out ahead financially over five years.
This is really the key point. Everyone I've known personally who buys a home does so with the intent to "upgrade" their lifestyle. Even if they were perfectly content before in their 1000 sq ft 2 bedroom apartment, they aren't content purchasing the same size home. Instead they upgrade to a 1700 sq ft 3 bedroom home, or larger, because after all owning a home is supposed to feel better than just renting an apartment. In financial terms, they are worse off, but maybe they are happier with their spending (I'd hope).
Why there is no exponential taxes for owning that many properties after they are finished?
Now as an owner (of shares) I’m pegged to my mortgage (fixed) + HOA (and their scheduled increases) for the next 30y (if I choose). That’s something.
The thing about renting is, unless you’re in rent-controlled district, it can go up any amount. And in my experience, what’s advertised is always more than what you’re paying.
If you are a single person who is likely to get married and/or move for work, why would you buy? The transaction costs of buying and then selling are non trivial.
On the other hand if you are with your wife and kids, the potential ability to move for a job is less important (objectively) than community you are establishing for your kids and family. So it's not just those who value stability vs flexibility as a behavioral trait but as a realistic reflection of a situation.
It's like a bike guy becomes a minivan guy when he has 3 kids.
Holding the assumption that your landlord operates on favorable conditions (mine is pretty responsive and rent increases are controlled), I’m not sure I have a good reason to opt to purchase a house unless I’m planning on occupying it for the next 2 decades at minimum.
I can’t help but think purchasing is an emotional decision, unless the location you live in allows you to buy for a similar rate to the mortgage pricing, but I’ve only observed this in LCOL areas.
You seemed to have missed one unique attribute of land. They’re not making any more of it.
Any "house" would be too big for me by myself. And buying a condo apartment seems like a strange proposition to me; compared to renting the same space, it seems like just paying extra in order to accumulate some nebulous equity at the end of the term. I'd rather do that with more liquid asset classes.
https://www.realpage.com/storage/files/blog/posts/images/202...
I once spent 1/2 my Sunday trying to convince my best friend that he would have financially been better off if he rented (he paid off his house which he can sell today for $2,000,000) - I came with receipts (pun intended) showing how he would have been significantly better off if he rented and invested in the market but to no avail :)
I get good flexibility and value for my dollar. The savings over renting is insane.
This means that, generally, no matter where you buy, you won't want to have bought anywhere else after a few years. There are cases where you might hate it, of course, but you could still sell/rent to someone else and buy/rent elsewhere.
If you get unlucky with no reason to still be in a particular city and that city starts a downward swing, there's no gaurantee it ever comes back and you're stuck taking care of something that you might never be able to sell for anything but a loss.
I will likely stay a renter and keep that flexibility in my new city for a long time after this experience.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/upshot/buy-rent-cal...
I think this might be a good balance to get us some type of flexibility while also diversifying our assets. But now the problem is trying to find a decent rental property in another city :p
I looked into this a few years ago when I was trying to see if we were really in the worst housing market ever, and came to the opposite conclusion. https://arriens.us/articles/housing.html
Buying a house is often an emotionally motivated decision with many important risk factors... Were inspections comprehensive and thorough or did they overlook an issue with the foundation, wiring, plumbing, etc.? Did the buyer understand the required disclosures, and specifically understand what the seller is not obligated to disclose in their jurisdiction? (e.g., in many areas the seller is not obligated to disclose if a child sex offender lives next door). Is the neighborhood up and coming or struggling?
Getting these wrong can easily negate the potential upsides of ownership.
Renting can also be great, but as the article points out, if it mostly just results in more disposable cash, then you may be better off owning (forced savings). Rental properties often cannot be sublet and also cannot be used as collateral or passed on to family members with a step-up in basis. Rental leases also fluctuate with the market, so it's not uncommon in big cities for renters to be paying close or equal prices of their homeowners next door.
Anecdotally I know many folks who have rented their way through, invested wisely, and done well. I also know folks who have moved around the US and always purchased, did their homework, capitalized on tax incentives, and now have a stable of rental properties that helped them become FIRE.
“Hey I’ve got an idea. We’re always talking about good investments. What if we came up with the worst possible investment we can construct? What might that look like?”
Well, let’s see now (pulling out our lined yellow pad), let’s make a list. To be really terrible:
- It should be not just an initial, but if we do it right, a relentlessly ongoing drain on the cash reserves of the owner.
- It should be illiquid. We’ll make it something that takes weeks, no – wait – even better, months of time and effort to buy or sell.
- It should be expensive to buy and sell. We’ll add very high transaction costs. Let’s say 5% commissions on the deal, coming and going.
- It should be complex to buy or sell. That way we can ladle on lots of extra fees and reports and documents we can charge for.
- It should generate low returns. Certainly no more than the inflation rate. Maybe a bit less.
- It should be leveraged! Oh, oh this one is great! This is how we’ll get people to swallow those low returns! If the price goes up a little bit, leverage will magnify this and people will convince themselves it’s actually a good investment! Nah, don’t worry about it. Most will never even consider that leverage is also very high risk and could just as easily wipe them out."
Of course, a solid investment plan may offset these - but only a domicile (doesn't need to be a house) would survive everything related to the economy going to utter hell.
I agree about houses, though. A saner plan may be to purchase a modest apartment or the like, that you keep in the wings until you reach retirement.
That's... really not correct. And the section that follows the heading doesn't talk about (or even try to define) "investments" at all.
A home mortgage is a heavily (!) subsidized, very safe, easily-acquired and extremely leveraged investment in an asset class that tends over long terms to grow as well as anything else.
A young professional looking at a putting $100k into stocks or as downpayment on a $500k (!) mortgage is just a no brainer. Fast forward 20 years and the 5x is applied to all the appreciation.
Buy homes, folks. Worry about renting only when you're old and are making the decision as to whether to by your fifth home for cash or to finance and put the money into another asset class. The only time you decide not to is when you know a priori you can't hold the property long enough to cover the purchase overhead.
(That said: there are lots of macroeconomic and environmental reasons to think a culture where everyone should buy a home is a bad thing. But in our culture, everyone should buy a home.)
1) That buying implies owning your own top-to-bottom house, with no adjacent neighbors.
2) That renting necessarily comes with arbitrary rent increases and risks of eviction.
3) That mixed communities of buyers and renters are uncommon.
None of these is necessarily true if you live in a city, depending on the city. It sounds like a lot of people are actually comparing “living in an apartment/condo” to “moving out to the suburbs,” not renting vs. owning.
Rent is going up A LOT every year. My parent's house in a similar area is not, even with extra taxes, it is far lower than what I pay.
They fix up something, its fixed. We have a problem -- it will be fixed in the cheapest possible terribly looking way.
And rent keeps going up. All the time. By so much.
There's flexibility in it when you're in your 20s. But in 30s and 40s its terrible.
"The flexibility of renting has major financial advantages"
Like 80% of my motivation to make money in past was: to buy a house. I have no interest in FIRE and be a couch surfing digital nomad around the world or whatever.
So it's hard for me to be motivated by the financial aspect if the end result was no house for now basically.
I don’t want to be a real estate developer writ large, but I do want to develop my own space and optimize it for my family as it grows and changes over time.
Have you ever seen a realestate agent renting? So, does that make you think - maybe ownership has more benefits!
Thats like saying it makes sense to buy tesla stock because i bought it at $10
No, don't be emotional, don't buy your own place and have stability. Own nothing and be happy! Let the corporations own everything and have "flexibility (TM)"
> The math can always be made to “work” if you’re willing to adjust what or where you buy.
This is essentially a useless statement, the result of the math is either that either renting or buying makes you end up more wealthy. Whether it "works" or not isn't even the question, the question is which choice makes you more wealthy over time (more on that later).
For that, it's more helpful to use a rent vs. buy calculator [1] with the details of your market plugged in. Whether renting or buying makes more sense for you has a lot to do with where you live.
Let's continue on to the next section, "Buying a Home Isn’t Really an Investment."
The obvious rebuttal to this is "of course it is!"
> The decision is usually driven by lifestyle factors such as proximity to work, school districts, family, and the neighborhood.
All of these factors play in to whether or not the property is a good investment. Places that are in good school districts and have close proximity to job centers are good investments. The real estate investors that this section mentions think about these exact same things before starting projects.
Next section: "People Tend to Overbuy." Is there any data or evidence behind this whole paragraph? Are we just saying that people who own homes buy more furniture and stuff than renters? Maybe they do, but even if that's true could that be because they're more wealthy in the first place? Who knows, this entire paragraph is all assumptions and nothing backing it up.
Next section: "The Flexibility of Renting Is Undervalued"
6/10 Americans live within 10 miles of where they grew up, and 8/10 Americans live within 100 miles of where they grew up. [2] Is the flexibility of renting actually needed for most Americans? Are Americans missing out on job promotions because they own homes? (It's not like you can't sell a home quickly)
I would counter the premise of this section with "The stability of home ownership is undervalued" and "the 30-year fixed mortgage is a gigantic subsidy to homebuyers." By taking out a mortgage, homeowners are locking in the majority of their monthly cost with the exception of maintenance, utilities, and property taxes. They sit in their house for a few years and they end up paying below market on monthly payment compared to renters. So maybe they "overbought" a home with too many bedrooms to fit all phases of life, but it doesn't really matter because after the first ~5-10 years of home ownership they are going to be paying less than market-rate rentals.
The 30-year fixed mortgage allows homeowners to refinance and minimize their rate pretty much any time the rate drops, so basically every renter is always getting the lowest rate possible since from their purchase date forward, and it never goes up.
The last section: Why the Home Investment Myth Persists
Sure, this section is technically correct, someone investing money elsewhere is going to beat real estate on returns. But you can't live in an index fund, an index fund may not have the same protections [a] and tax incentives as a home, and it is a fact that most people are not disciplined with investments which means the forced investment of a mortgage's end result is that homeowners are far more wealthier than renters on average. [3]
[a] For example, your home equity doesn't count toward the ability to pay calculation for FAFSA, and you are generally protected from having your home taken away from you if you get into most debt situations. Check out how OJ Simpson avoided paying his civil judgment: https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/how-did-oj-simpson-avoi...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/upshot/buy-rent-cal...
[2] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/07/theres-no-pla...
[3] https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/study-home...
That sometimes under the right circumstances a home is both a great place to live, the best deal you can get in your area, and also an investment
You sort of alluded to it in your post, but it’s different for everyone, but then you go on ahead and speak as if there were one answer
Good for you you chose to rent - you don’t have to deny homes potentially being good investments to validate your decision