Originally Posted by xxweekxx

thats assuming you make 12%/yr on stocks for 30 years in a row..

you are missing a very important part of the math, the fact that the person who DID not buy has to pay rent..

so the guy who basically decided to take the 20k and invest in stocks, will have spent say $500/month on that same house in rent..

so thats $6kyr = $180k in 30 years..

so in 30 years, the guy who bought a house, is paying for it, BUT LIVING in it, hence after 30 years he still has an asset worth a lot more than he paid..

the guy who didnt buy and put the money in stocks, had to pay RENT, so in 30years, he might have made money from stocks, but he also spent a minimum of $200k in rent for that period.. makes sense?