For example, it might mean that high employment and high activity centers have higher cost of living (Like S.F. and N.Y.) and therefore smaller percent of home ownership. – MadeInTaiwan

Taiwan, I agree with you and sduuuude, I think they may be putting data together and getting the wrong conclusion.

I want to point out that many of the areas with the most affordable homes (—-> higher homeownership rates) are also in the so-called “rust belt”, where indeed there is higher unemployment. For example, my home state of Michigan, overall unemployment 10%, but in my home town a nice 1600 sf house in a nice neighborhood can be had for $130,000.

My personal anecdotal experience is that in the nice neighborhoods of such cities, the crime rate is lower, while of course ownership is higher. Renting a house in these areas is very rare, most people buy (and sell later for roughly the same price). These housing markets (at least outstate Michigan) don’t go up and down much; my childhood home was worth $100,000 in the ’80’s and is about $130,000 now. Of course, when you go to bombed-out areas of Detroit and Flint, unemployment and thus crime is through the roof even though houses can be had for $4,000 (literally).

I am personally allergic to the idea of being a renter for life for one 4-word reason:

Fixed income during retirement

I have watched rents head to the moon too much around here (on what has been effectively a fixed income, no raises in 8 years), to want that for myself when I am retired. With no hope of a raise on the horizon then, ever-spiraling rents would quickly drive me out onto the street to be a bag lady. However, if a pensioner can buy a home, they can lock down their monthly housing cost, and have much less to worry about. Particularly if they have the house paid off when retired (used to be the normal case in the U.S.). This is my personal goal.