I'd be curious how that stat changes if weighted by population rather than municipality.
The article acknowledges that the calculus is vastly different for major metropolitan areas like SF or NYC. Thing is - a good portion of the population lives in those major metropolitan areas. It doesn't do much good to know that buying beats renting in, say, Kansas or Tennessee if you happen to live in SF or NYC.
Similarly, I wonder how they'd compare either strategy to the "Move to SF or NYC for 10 years, make bank, live cheaply, then buy 5 houses in Kansas or Tennessee, living in one and renting the rest out. Never work again."
The article acknowledges that the calculus is vastly different for major metropolitan areas like SF or NYC. Thing is - a good portion of the population lives in those major metropolitan areas. It doesn't do much good to know that buying beats renting in, say, Kansas or Tennessee if you happen to live in SF or NYC.
Similarly, I wonder how they'd compare either strategy to the "Move to SF or NYC for 10 years, make bank, live cheaply, then buy 5 houses in Kansas or Tennessee, living in one and renting the rest out. Never work again."