NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Whether to rent or buy a home is one of the toughest choices young people face these days.
A recent Deutsche Bank study compared renting vs. the cost of owning a home in 54 cities. It estimated the monthly payment on an average house, factoring in property taxes, homeowners insurance and the tax break for mortgage-interest deductions. It concluded that in 20 metro areas -- including some quite attractive locales such as Orange County in California and suburban Long Island in New York -- it's cheaper to rent than buy.
If folks need to move to another city for a new job or to be with a new spouse, realtor's fees and other transactions costs can wipe out the savings many people realize from owning a home if they live in it for less than five years.
Still, for many, that math is irrelevant.
Most people don't move between cities once they settle into an occupation. Teachers, accountants and most other professionals operate within regional job markets, especially where state licenses apply. Most can stay put if they like and know whether they will want to move to another city anytime soon.
Also, the investment climate has changed dramatically during the last 15 years, indicating that homes are a better investment than stocks.
Many people are scared, because homes have recovered only about 40% of the total value they lost during the financial crisis, while stocks have set record highs. That is a very short-term view.
In this century, U.S. economic growth has slowed to 1.7%, or about half the pace set during the prior 20 years. Consequently, the S&P 500, which tracks 80% of publicly traded U.S. equities, is up only 23%, while the S&P index of home prices for the 20 largest metro areas is up more than 60%.
Moreover, young folks like to live close to work near cities, where land is scarce and construction costs more. If anything, appreciation will be stronger in those locations.
Still, families can't collect dividends on their houses, but they can do several things to make owning a home a more sensible investment.
Realtors are fond of advising young folks to plan on owning three homes during the course of their lifetime -- a starter home, a larger dwelling for raising children and then scaled-back accommodations for retirement. But the resulting costs related to these sales and purchases can take a big bite out of the lifetime return on investment.
Often, it's more practical to buy one home that works throughout your life cycle. Young people should stretch their expectations for a first home. They should ask, what kind of house do we reasonably need to raise a family? Then buy a first home in a good school district.
Children can be raised without two rec rooms, a dedicated home theater, three and a half baths and a huge back yard. What children want most is to be close to their parents, and more sensible, but not cramped, space works well.
My wife and I raised a family in a moderate-sized row house in the historic district of Alexandria, Va., albeit with a family room that served multiple purposes, 20 minutes from the White House. And we met a lot of interesting folks taking our children to city parks.
As empty nesters, we live comfortably in the same dwelling with the prospect of retirement in a home not too burdensome to maintain. The mortgage is paid and all that money we did not spend on realtors, lawyers and mortgage bankers will make retirement more comfortable.
Bottom line: Buy a sensible home to raise your family, and it will prove a sound investment over the long haul.
>>Read More: Apple Hit $600, Now Raise the Target
>>Read More: Cracker Barrel's Country-Good Dividend
Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business.
This article represents the opinion of a contributor and not necessarily that of TheStreet or its editorial staff.