It forces you to make some assumptions on market returns and such, but it gives a pretty clear picture. The biggest variable is how long you expect to live in the same place (longer favors buy) and the next biggest is the ratio of average rent to average housing payment. The inflection point being that if you live in one place long enough to pay off the mortgage, then it obviously starts to be much more advantageous to buy, but that requires you predicting your life 30 years in the future.

pc86 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> but that requires you predicting your life 30 years in the future.

This is true, but the vast majority of people - especially in the US - don't move around the country or even state every few years. One of the biggest, perhaps the biggest, pro of renting is that you're not tied down to one place for very long.

It's pretty rare that someone buys a house then is suddenly forced to move hours away.

	▲	lokar 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think people sell their (occupied) house after about 10 years on average, for whatever reason.
	▲	lorecore an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Moving around a lot incurs its own costs. Time, transportation, movers, deposits (which you're unlikely to get fully returned), new furniture... I think it's an additional "hidden" cost to renting that doesn't get talked about much.

▲

barchar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not true that paying off the mortgage makes it more advantageous to buy, home equity creates portfolio drag.

	▲	bombcar 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is possible to find weird inversions where it never makes sense to buy - prices are too high and rents are too low. CA has these places, where property tax arbitrage by renters can be less than the new property tax would be if sold.