Hmm, a little too much "correlation does not imply causation" going on here. While the article even calls it out, they still present ownership vs economic output as a primary argument. It also presents cities like SF and NY as having lower ownership rates and higher incomes, but completely ignores increased cost of living and a multitude of other factors.
There are far too many z-variables being ignored here to make a strong case. Owning a home may not be a fantastic asset (I view mine as a liability until it is completely paid off) but arguing that ownership is an overall inhibitor of economic growth and financial benefit is certainly not successful in this article.
1 comment
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 10.4 ms ] threadThere are far too many z-variables being ignored here to make a strong case. Owning a home may not be a fantastic asset (I view mine as a liability until it is completely paid off) but arguing that ownership is an overall inhibitor of economic growth and financial benefit is certainly not successful in this article.