We can certainly debate the financial benefits of owning vs. renting. It's an important angle to consider and this article is simply challenging the automatic a

We can certainly debate the financial benefits of owning vs. renting. It's an important angle to consider and this article is simply challenging the automatic assumption that ownership is financially always the sounder choice. However, we might want to also consider other dimensions, like the social benefits of owning vs. renting. Is it really good for us as individuals and for society in general when property is concentrated in the hands of relatively few people? It's one thing to have a relatively large number of property owners who both rent their properties out and rent their own living space. It's a totally different thing when, say, several moguls and the government own 75% of the apartments in a city. Also, while mobility is important for some, others form communities, and still others don't have that option or desire to move around. When you don't own, you don't really have skin in the game. If something sucks, you leave. When you own, you've put in your chips. You've bought a stake in the community. You're going to care more about both the property you live in and the neighborhood. If the market takes a turn locally, there will exist a greater incentive to make the changes necessary to buck the turn instead of just moving. If the schools suck, and you care about education, ownership is more likely to create the incentive to improve them. If you rent, you move to another district. For some, that move makes sense. But for many, it makes greater sense to improve what's around them. In other words, the assumption that owning a house is primarily or solely an investment can be challenged as a narrow view of ownership.