[1123581321]

You come out ahead with home ownership if you buy the right-sized home and stay there. Homes almost always offer more space and utility for less than rent would, assuming the rental even allows you to do what you want to do with your home or at your home.

Staying put reduces the time and money you spend on borrowing, closing and moving, but most importantly, it keeps you from lifestyle inflation that is the biggest financial risk to homeowners or renters.

These are the dynamics in most of the United States in the broadest age range. They only break down a bit at the extreme low end (rooming with a bunch of people) and in the most expensive and house-constrained cities.

[anthonypasq]

> Homes almost always offer more space and utility for less than rent would

1. you can rent a single family house so the space and utility are the same

2. if interest rates recently increased very rapidly, the owner can afford to charge rent much lower than the current mortgage would be because they are locked into a lower interest rate.

[1123581321]

I don't think so.

A rental house is almost always more expensive if it's an apples-to-apples space, or the renter's use of it is significantly restricted even though it looks similar. Sometimes both.

There can be temporary mispricings of rent vs mortgages, but they correct, and they go in both directions. There are always small mispricings in housing markets that let individuals do exceptionally well (or be ripped off.)

[anthonypasq]

>I don't think so.

this isnt a valid response. you are just wrong. https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-where-its-c...

[1123581321]

For the most part, those aren't like-for-like comparisons. In much of the US, where the average mortgage price is higher, it's because people are buying more than what they would rent.

There are a few distorted markets where that's not the case.

Didn't mean to offend with the preface before the rest of my comment.