I have to wonder though if in aggregate if a predominantly rent based society will lead to even more wealth disparity. While the housing bubble was not exactly the epitome of economic health, we've seen what has happened in the bay area recently. For most bay area tech workers there has been a substantial rise in employability and wages but on the other hand a significant portion on average of the individual economic gains typically have been funneled to increased rent that seems to go up 10-15% every year out here. Heck we even see this in North Dakota with the new oil jobs - the rent for a place in the middle of nowhere has skyrocketed. I guess the point being that Im unsure that low unemployment and mobility strongly correspond to more accumulated wealth for employees.
I spend quite a bit of time analyzing lending data and personal finances.
I've also observed that when comparing a group of loans, those with homes were almost as likely to default on a loan as those without homes and it had minimal impact despite most people assuming that having a home makes a person "more stable." I have definitely seen many situations where a home becomes the priority over life, family and personal finances as well.
On the flip side, this argument also assumes that if consumers get better jobs, make more money, etc. that they'll actually save and/or invest more and the unfortunate reality is that most people just tend to increase their rate of consumption proportionately to their income/bonus increase.
So the nature of having a forced savings plan through a mortgage payment requires them to put money away yet still limiting their ability to move or take better positions.
