Don't forget closing costs and the opportunity cost of investing the down payment (which regulations basically require to be like 20% now I think). But yes, I

Don't forget closing costs and the opportunity cost of investing the down payment (which regulations basically require to be like 20% now I think). But yes, I agree that that's the history, that if you're in an area for a few years it's better to buy than to rent, but isn't it untenable for real estate to increase in value at ~3% higher than inflation indefinitely? I genuinely don't understand the long run bull case for real estate as an investment. But the idea that you'll get a rate of return that's close to the stock market, from owning some land that's just sitting there? It's very strange to me, from a 10,000 foot view of the economics. It's true that there's a fixed amount of land, but the population (both in the US and in the world as a whole) is growing slowly now and will soon stop. I suppose one potential driver for real estate's value in major cities is that the returns to concentration of talent will continue to increase. That seems possible (though beware of tail risks there, like remote work, VR, pandemic). But for real estate that's outside of a big growing city? It just seems possible that we've been in a long bull run in real estate that could slow down or halt drastically at any time. But that doesn't mean that it's not better to own than to rent. When you rent, you've got another party that's looking for a profit, and your rent is pricing in risks that are more under your control when you're an owner (like the risk that you totally trash the property, or the opportunity cost when the house is sitting empty).