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...

[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...