The stock market is overvalued and risky but so is real estate. I'm sure there are still lots of better-than-nothing companies to invest in.
You want to put money into things that are going to be making money in the future. Real estate is one, but businesses are another.
In general I would much prefer to not deal with real estate, but it simply would mean a lot bigger risk of a few unpleasant decades at the end of life.
If that's what you care about, it would be wise to consider the impact on society as well. Society doesn't do well when resources are only accessible to a wealthy elite, and a stunted society will hurt your childrens' future. So maybe it's not such a good idea for real estate to be a scarce, rapidly appreciating asset, if it leads to unaffordable housing and economic desperation for the masses, political instability, etc.
I'm not saying don't invest in real estate, only that the political conditions that make real estate a good investment may be bad for society at large.
I am so baffled by this. Seems like a mental smokescreen for NIMBY homeowners to protect themselves from the realization that they are the problem.
If every landlord was murdered today and replaced with a homeowner, there would not be the slightest impact on either the home price crisis or its root cause, the artificial restriction in supply caused by NIMBY zoning and regulations.
In fact, the supply pinch would probably get worse. Big landlords can benefit from expanded supply if they own that expanded supply. Single-home homeowners see only the risk of disruption to their environment. A city full of single-home homeowners might never build anything, anywhere, ever again.
(Just in case anyone asks, I am not a landlord. I'd have to be a multi-millionaire to even contemplate it in my area.)