Comment by dmbche
1. So investments can be in other sectors than housing, I've heard. I'm sure you can look it up. Or you're welcome to lecture me too.
2. If a homeowner has more than one property, why not sell one of the properties when you become cost burdened? Also, I think at some point you stop paying a mortgage, right? I don't think that's the case with renting.Oh and it's a neat financial tool too, a mortgage.
So yeah renters would be better off owning, other than in some niche situations.
I don't understand what brings people to move for jobs if the salary doesn't make housing trivial for them. You're saying people on a 50k salary will move cities rather than change jobs?
Edit0: and that link I sent earlier that you probably didn't open shows that renters on average pay 30% of income on housing, while owners with mortgages paid 20% and 10% without a mortgage. Renters are the in the absolute worst situation however you want to cut it.
The subject here is property investors. You seemed to be claiming that they would buy a property and not rent it. So I don't know what "other sectors" has to do with anything?
And no, renters are not better off owning, except in "niche situations". I genuinely don't know where you've gotten that idea. It depends highly on your local market, but on average renting is cheaper than owning, and it frees up a lot of money that can be invested more productively.
You seem to have some kind of prejudice against renting, which I genuinely don't understand. And your concept that the cost of housing ought to be "trivial" for people to move is incredibly unsympathetic. An assistant professor will move for a better chance of getting tenure. For a fellowship. For whatever. A lot of people can't just "change jobs". They have training for a specific niche, and often advancing their career requires moving to a different city, full stop.