If buying costs thousands more per month than renting in expensive markets like San Jose or San Francisco, why would anyone buy?

In the near term, renting really can be cheaper than owning in expensive markets, sometimes by thousands a month. The case for buying plays out over the long horizon. Rents tend to climb with inflation. Even at just 3% a year, rent runs roughly 35% higher a decade out, and it keeps rising for as long as you rent. A 30-year fixed mortgage does the opposite: the principal-and-interest payment stays locked for the life of the loan, and if rates fall you can refinance lower. So the renter who's cheaper today tends to fall further behind over many years, while the owner's biggest housing cost stays flat and equity builds. That said, this is a genuine personal choice, not a slam dunk. A disciplined renter who reliably invests the monthly difference can do very well. Ownership works partly because it forces savings and delivers payment stability, which suits people who would otherwise spend the gap. The honest move is to run your own numbers over a five-to-ten-year-plus horizon, not a single month, and be candid with yourself about whether you'll actually invest the difference. Nobody can promise where prices or rents go. The mechanism, a fixed payment against rising rent, is what's durable.