In most times and places in the US real estate appreciates slightly more than the rate of inflation at 3-4% nominally. So real estate grows much more slowly than most expect. A primary residence should be seen as the cost of shelter, not an investment, because...
Your real estate appreciation figure doesn't factor in things like: rent (either payed to you if its nor your primary residence or rent you don't have to pay if living in your primary residence) and all the tax breaks associated with home ownership. With those additional sources of income, it's possible for real estate to be competitive with stocks.
It also doesn't factor in home maintenance or transactional costs. It doesn't factor in time required to maintain a home. It doesn't factor in lost opportunities due to the increase in expense and hassle of relocation.
> It doesn't factor in lost opportunities due to the increase in expense and hassle of relocation.
Selling my residence is so far down my personal list of "frictions to relocation" as to be irrelevant. I hate moving, period. So does my wife.
I also personally do not see having to dispose of a property when moving as that big a deal. Again, that's me.
> Renters are happier. That is worth something.
First off, the article doesn't say that. It says that owners are generally not any happier.
Second, it's one citation. You shouldn't be making absolute statements off one citation.
Third, the overall thrust of the research is the more general "experience > stuff". I find that to be a highly personal decision and not something where population studies can inform the individual.
Your real estate appreciation figure doesn't factor in things like: rent (either payed to you if its nor your primary residence or rent you don't have to pay if living in your primary residence) and all the tax breaks associated with home ownership. With those additional sources of income, it's possible for real estate to be competitive with stocks.