So? Not everyone is brainwashed by their banal suburban upbringing into thinking that home ownership is the highest state of enlightenment a human can achieve. I can afford to buy a place outright in cash but I still rent because I like the flexibility and have no interest in betting a large fraction of my net worth on the direction of real estate prices.
Home ownership is the strongest correlating factor with financial independence and overall net worth. Even in the Bay Area, owning a home and the equity in it is generally the most critical asset financially independent people have.
I'm not going to claim renting is universally bad, as it has some upsides (mainly flexibility), but it's definitely financially less savvy than buying, and is generally something you wouldn't want to optimize for at high salary.
You know whats an even stronger correlating factor? Having $400k liquid per year.
Homeownership is advertised as owning an extremely leveraged illiquid asset whose margin calls take years, which is the only reason why it works for people that don't have enough cash to be financially independent another way.
Dunno, what’s the return on property, less maintenance turnover and annual wealth taxes vs the market? What’s the risk of dumping so much capital into exactly one asset vs a stock portfolio?
Additionally, I'm slightly concerned about a possible real estate bubble + I'm not sure if I plan to live in South Bay for 5+ years (the usual amount of time needed to keep your house for it to be worth it financially).
It's not that I can't afford a house, I can; I'd just rather have my money in an index fund and rent instead right now.
