[prepend]

As far back as I can remember this has always been the case. Sometimes there’s weird situations where buying is cheaper but generally, when looking at the immediate term renting is cheaper.

But it’s pretty dumb to do an analysis like this NYT article as it’s important to factor in some amount of time for decision making. These can get pretty complicated but just a basic personal model factoring in 2-3% annual increases in rent compared against ownership costs is what I used to choose rent over buy.

It can be used for a specific decision (eg, “I’m going to live in Fooberg for 5 years, what should I do?”) or macro life planning (eg, “I’m going to live for 60 more years, what should I do?”).

It’s funny how these articles are so clickbaity and missing on basic reporting and analysis. I think it’s based on the few people who actually sub to the NYT like reading about populist stuff (eg, landlords bad, can’t afford to buy).

Of course these things are true, but they’re always true. Maybe it was awesome in 1945, but it was super hard for someone in their 20s to buy a house in the 80s and 90s and it’s super hard now. Tl;dr; you probably still want to buy a place in 9/10 situations since rent goes up and mortgage is fixed and eventually ends (although taxes and insurance and maintenance sort of index to inflation).

[tootahe45]

I think it's quite common for people to waste all of their money on consumption and not save or invest, so a mortgage in a way is a forced savings account which helps to average person build or at least save some wealth over time.