The problem with that is, people are far, far more likely to SPEND that extra money on fun stuff than save or invest it. So that argument only actually works for people who are very disciplined tightwads (you know, like lots of people on this forum
)
I remember Noel Whittaker talking of this scenario a few years ago.
He said that renting and investing was financially better - but most people don't invest the difference.
So, you would assume from this that to buy a house is singularly (for most people) the best investment they can make in the longer term. Some will say super is better; I don't agree.
And that's the key; most people can't make the necessary financial sacrifices to get ahead; whether it be to study harder and do more courses to get the better job, to scrimp harder to get the first IP and so on.
For example; one of my staff refused to do the Roadworthy Testers' Course recently - he is 49. His reason; he is too old and has done enough studying for one lifetime.
Now, I am 50 and HAVE to do it if we are to conduct road-worthies to add another income stream to my business. By the way; the course is quite easy, and can be done from home - I even offered to pay for his course.
And, we will be doing them as soon as we get the accreditation. I will need suitably qualified mechanics to perform them....
If it comes down to having an employee who is qualified to do road-worthies, his lack of commitment might cost him his job (I'm sure it will in actual fact sooner than later).
That's a sacrifice he won't make to better himself financially and make his job more secure, and is making him less valuable to my business.
He is a very nice bloke but sadly - one of the 95%.