patrick.net

Effectively, the article argues that unless you're in a very small category of people, you better buy a house if you want to save money. Statistics show that people who buy, have a net worth. This doesn't try to afford for societal norms and try to explain why, only that the numbers show it to be so.

So if you're renting to make more money, you better do it! That's an important part of the argument. Sure, a house is a statistically poor use of money but will you be disciplined enough to invest the money you're not spending on a house?

I am a facts based person and buying clearly pushes most into a higher net worth category for a variety of reasons. As an adult, I have rented 50% and owned 50% of the time. My net worth stagnated during my renting periods and zoomed forward during my ownership years. So yes, for me, owning is the way to go. Even so, I have always referred to 'Home Depot' as 'Home DEBIT'. LOL.

I find it amazing that median net worth is so low. That is the primary indicator that both people who own houses and people who rent have committed to spending all of their money and working until they're nearly dead.

Correlation is not causation, and past performance does not guarantee future results. In the years leading up to 2010, America had (a) a real estate bubble that increased the net worth of homeowners and (b) an unprecedented bailout (including QE and ZIRP) for the express purpose of "helping homeowners" at the expense of renters. Also, the subset of homeowners who lost everything and failed to qualify for a government bailout were then foreclosed and evicted, and became renters, probably reducing the renters' median. It's a bit like the volatility of median sale prices: if more sales are discounted foreclosures, then the median falls, then if fewer sales are discounted foreclosures, the median rises again, even while the fair market value of the median house might remain unchanged or move in the opposite direction from the median sale price. Looking ahead, as long as government policy continues to favor owners, the disparity may persist, but that doesn't mean owning is inherently better - or that government policy will never change.

curious2 says

In the years leading up to 2010

House prices in 2010 were much lower than they had been, so, in that way, it's a fair year to consider net worth including house value.

I think the correlation pointed out is one that's been steady for many decades, but probably is connected with reasons you gave as much as any.

The point is that the house value itself isn't necessarily the reason for net worth. I see less and less reason for that to be the case despite overwhelming popular opinion that it is the case.