Is it really, though? How much more efficient is owning than renting in most markets? My sense was that, given the rate at which people typically move, it's normally a wash.
The difference between renting and buying isn't just the monthly payment. It's also the range of outcomes. If you buy a place with 20% down, and the property price goes up by 20% whilst you're living there, you've doubled your net worth.
In some US states (e.g. California) mortgages are nonrecourse[0], so it's a bit with unlimited upside, but capped downside. If the property price crashes to 50% of the purchase price, you can walk away, losing only your initial deposit.
[0] http://www.financialsamurai.com/non-recourse-states-walk-awa...
Or have 4.7 years of rent for the same place. After which you're likely to get tired of SF anyway and move somewhere else. Oh and in the 4.7 years you've been paying rent out of savings, you've saved up enough for the next 4.7 years of rent in NYC ... or many many years of rent anywhere else.
So yeah, I for one am def not ever buying unless I can cash it out in one go.
Then again, there are many things you could do for a million dollars in cash. Like retire for 10 years and do cool shit.
That "range of outcomes" isn't a free upgrade, though: you pay for it directly with a higher mortgage interest rate.
Moving is a major disruption, and I don't think moving frequently is the norm, nor so I thinkost people like to do it.
Right, the trick is to not move, but buy and hold.
In the US where owning is fairly common people do move less than other parts of the world where owning is not common.
Either owning or renting can be good. They both lead to very different life style decisions.
As always location location location. The are some areas where rent would be twice your house payment for similar sized places. There are some areas where rent is much cheaper than a house payment. Most people buy something much bigger/nicer place than they would rent - this is a smart thing as they will be spending more time there.