Aside from being from the city of Tarantula, I think you seem like reasonably intelligent chap, TG. The point you are making is valid.
The concern about mobility becomes irrelevant once you achieve a certain minimum level of return. If I bought in Tarantula or Manatee (menifee) it would be irrelevant if I got transferred. It would mean that I have an asset that pays for itself and kicks out a check each month. In some ways, that makes it better than a primary residence.
Regarding Diego’s remarks, the mods I would make to this are that at 100x monthly rent, the property is essentially a golden goose. Think about that number. 100x monthly is the same as 8 x yearly. That means 100% return on investment in 8 years. That’s a 12% return annually. Of course there are other costs as an owner (eg: repairs, taxes, vacancy). These might be offset by the yearly rental increase. However, if one could get something at 100xmonthly (or even 150x monthly for that matter), then they probably would. One caveat: calculating that monthly means backing out the cost of any association dues.
Combine this with some of the tax credits in the works and some of those just being considered and it really adjusts the whole purchasing calculus.
