Weird, you seem to have found the example after all. gratz!
Communication isn't your thing, is it? Why would I be responding to Matt's example, to you? And why wouldn't his example be accurate? The whole point of a rental property is to charge enough rent to pay the mortgage and have a slight bit of income. So $1000 mortgage vs. $1200 rent sounds about right- here in LA, double/triple/quadruple those figures.
And because you left out the tax benefits of ownership in your gloom and doom examples, now you cite me pointing it out as if that's a check box in your argument? Whatever.
And count on tax breaks for 30 years?
How about people counting on their rent not going up (astronomically!) for 30 years? Think their incomes automagically will also, to match?
Truth is, 30 years from now when both rent and mortgages are figures that will make most peoples' heads spin- many of us owners will be owning, and living in a nice place, some of us collecting from renters on several places. Many lifelong renters will be paying an outrageous fortune for a tiny little 1 room box somewhere, if they can even afford that. At that point, no one will give most a loan for anything- it's too late, there is no more 30 years to pay it off, and probably people's incomes aren't what they were in their prime either.
If we're being honest, 30 years of homeownership vs. 30 years of renting- like I say, I'll take the owning any day. But good luck and happy trails to those that rent for that long. Seriously, my best wishes.