I have a loan from 2013. It’s cheaper than rent, even with the higher interest rate rise. That’s the point. Rent rises with inflation and the market. Mortgages rise (and fall) with rates. Mortgages start off more expensive than rent, but end up less than rent after a number of years. And you have an asset at the end.

Rates rising cause drops in price as the people extending themselves to their max repayment have lowered borrowing capacity. However, the people who buy a cheaper house with higher rates end up the same in the short term and better off in the long run, compared to those that bought at lower rates recently and then had multiple rises.

You’re comparing the cost of a mortgage from 20 years ago, with 20 years ago prices. Do you know what rents were at both points in time? The homeowner that paid 1540 in 2006 is likely still paying that now, the equivalent renter pays closer to the mortgage holder paying 4540 and has nothing more to show for it.

It’s a failing in the system. Those that can afford to get on the ladder are set for life. The earlier, the better. Those that rent have a constant battle to keep up with rising costs. I have seen some financial articles that argue the opposite. It requires putting the difference between rent and mortgage and deposit into investments instead to take advantage of compounding interest. I don’t know anyone who does that. The people with investments seem to be the people with houses.