> Nothing you said is wrong, but you could say that in 2013 too, and in that time apparently prices have nearly doubled and you missed out if you didn't take advantage.

In 2013 you couldn't say that prices have nearly doubled since 2013 under ZIRP, which is the argument that buying now would be buying high.

> Mortgages are "heads I win, tails you lose" in non-recourse states like California. You're not down more than your down payment, but the upside is huge, and for the past fifty years it has been more financially advantageous to use that leverage to buy the most expensive home they will allow you to.

You're not down more than your down payment plus whatever principal and interest you've paid since then.

On top of that, it's still leverage. Suppose you buy a $1M house with a $200k down payment and ~$5000/mo going to principal and interest. In five years you've paid out the $200k down payment, another ~$50k in principal and ~$250k in interest. If the value at that point declines by 25% since you bought, you're not down 25%, you're wiped out, -$500k, because you're left with a $750k house where you still owe $750k having already paid $500k. Let's say it's only -$380k because you'd have had to pay $2000/month to rent a smaller apartment in the alternative.

Whereas if you put the $380k into non-leveraged investments and the market declined by 25%, you'd still have $285k instead of $0. If the overall market does better than housing or it was "safe" investments like CDs then you'd still have the entire $380k plus whatever interest it earned. Worse yet, if housing costs declined then your monthly rent would go down but your mortgage is fixed for 30 years.

You could still make the argument that it's worth it to take the leverage if the upside is expected to be large, i.e. you expect the value to keep going up, but suppose you don't.