Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to purchase a home - but historically - if you did - you've been much better off financially. It's the same as saying you don't NEED to go to college. No, you don't. You don't need much of anything... But if you did go to college - whether through correlation or causation - statistically you are much better off. So if college and housing get out of reach for most people - then maybe they will be worse…
> You don't need to purchase a home - but historically - if you did - you've been much better off financially. it's not the purchase of the home that made you better off financially, but the ability to purchase a home. If you had that ability, investing in another asset at the same leverage level (such as shares) would net you even more financial income (obviously, its higher risk).
For instance, after paying off a mortgage entirely, my housing costs will be effectively repairs, property tax and utilities. That's a tiny fraction of rent. Meanwhile over 25 years property prices have more than tripled so it's likely the renter's rent would have gone from $1500/month to $4500/month or so. If you have $7000/month for both cost of living and savings then putting $5500/month into whatever assets you choose now that your home is paid off is going to generate much better returns than putting $2500/month into whatever asset you choose after paying off your inflated rent.
Alternatively, you can buy the home purely as an investment rather than a place to live. In this case, you have rental costs either way but you don't just make the capital gains on the home you also make rental income from renting it out. Typically rental income can be around 6% of property value. If you add that to the 7.5% returns to property YoY since 2001 you get 13.5% returns. You will have some expenses to deduct from that so your net returns might end up around 11%. That's still demolishing the stock market returns.