The strictly financial part of the calculation is important, but personal cost of volatility may be even more important for those in a position to choose to ren

The strictly financial part of the calculation is important, but personal cost of volatility may be even more important for those in a position to choose to rent or buy. I suggest it should also give pause to those who plan to build extensive social capital somewhere long term, but continue to rent. I view real estate ownership as a personal hedge. As we've seen in San Francisco from displacement of those in less lucrative sectors, rent that floats exposes you directly to the prosperity -- and inflation -- of all sectors in a region: in the future, that sector may not be your own. Property taxes expose you to this effect, but it is attenuated in magnitude (doubly so by California's Prop 13). The inflation of rents rendering your employment in a sector in a place obsolete is not so important if you can pick up and move, but it can prove socially expensive (and not priced in) if you have roots, are a contributor to civil society and/or have children. I feel badly for lifetime-renters-by-necessity those whose social capital is wiped out by these fluctuations without any compensation. As I see it, buying reduces the cross section of your outgoing flows to more radical local fluctuations, binding it to fixed or more moderate internationally-floating indicators (like ten-year treasuries, or LIBOR). Notably, no major family outgoing flow is so volatile: groceries have similar costs nationwide. Many other goods are globalized, have substitute options, and little friction: housing stands out as the big exception. I also suggest that marriage-house-children is not mere tradition, though it is that too. It is also a recognition of the increases in cost of volatility to the family unit: finding mutual job opportunities, and then the complexity of transplanting a child.