The math might be a bit different for SF - there are a lot of local factors to keep in mind (like that 500 HOA + Homeowners seems steep to me for a property that isn't near EOL) - but the biggest different at the end of the day is that the 3300 you're paying into principal + interest is still your money (well minus the interest) when you rent all 3000 you're paying is essentially throwing money into the void.

5-10 years later you have equity, a portion of value of the home not tied up by a mortgage. You can refinance or sell and extract this money. You can then use this money to move into the $2M house you had your eye on.

The difference is appreciation. Otherwise owning is probably 150% the cost of renting in SF. And with rent control you don’t have the issue of rent going up.

I've never owned a house in the US, but my understanding is that the interest portion is tax deductible (whereas rent is not), which at the kind of salaries necessary for this housing is likely to make a sizable dent in this payment.

I must admit that I had forgotten how high property taxes in the US can be, though. HOA surely depends a lot on what exactly you'd be buying.

IIRC that was changed -- the interest payments being deductible -- as part of the Trump tax cut.

The standard deduction was increased for everyone to compensate for it.

Not only that, a 5% return on that down payment is a $833/month opportunity cost.

Owning in SF is generally more expensive than renting. Why? Because house prices have appreciation assumptions already priced in. Plenty of people lose money every month versus rent but appreciation more than covers it.