Homes are not low-risk or stable at all - you transfer the risk to your job.

If you lose your employment and you have a home, that's a much riskier situation than if you're renting. Because, if you cant find a job in time or in a very small location radius, you must sell.

The mobility of renting lowers the risk associated with extraordinary life events which requires relocation.

▲

projectazorian 18 hours ago | parent [-]

If you live in a non-rent-stabilized apartment in a market where annual rent increases are the norm, then by renting you condemn yourself to permanent downward mobility unless your income increases by more than your rent every year.

8-10% annual rent increases are not unusual at all in NYC/LA/SF - maybe you can get a 10% raise every year, but I'd wager even most HN posters can't.

For this reason alone, it makes sense to grind to homeownership as quickly as possible if you live in a top tier market. Those locations also de-risk homeownership a bit since they have the largest job markets and highest real estate demand.

If you live anywhere else in the US then I agree, renting starts to look a lot more attractive.

	▲	const_cast 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not this simple: for early career software engineers, 10% pay raise per year is pretty low. I would expect 20% per year if you move companies. Can't really move companies easily if you're owning a home, ergo, about 10% potential loss per year over renting, not including the difference in investments you could achieve by having more liquid income w renting vs buying. Buying DOES make sense. I think it almost never makes sense if you're early in your career. The ceiling is just too high to give up potential earnings that early. The closer you get to the ceiling though, the more sense buying a home makes.