This asshole's bought-and-paid-for outfit thinks homeownership, long a foundation for a stable society, is a bad idea for the most part:
The study, by David G. Blanchflower of Dartmouth and Andrew J. Oswald of the University of Warwick in England, does not argue that homeowners are more likely to lose jobs than are renters. But it does argue that areas with high and rising levels of homeownership are more likely to be inhospitable to innovation and job creation and to have less labor mobility and longer commutes to work.
“We find that a high rate of homeownership slowly decimates the labor market,” Professor Oswald said.
At the simplest level, the authors of the study, released by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, point to the fact that the five states with the largest increase in homeownership from 1950 to 2010 — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia — had a 2010 unemployment rate that was 6.3 percentage points higher than in 1950. The unemployment rates in the five states where homeownership went up the least — California, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin — rose 3.5 percentage points during the period.
What the assholes like Peterson really want is for everybody to be renters, and the way to do this is to keep wages and salaries low and homeownership out of the reach of people by making houses unaffordable.
I am convinced this was what was underlying the outrageous increase in home prices, something that far outstripped people's ability to pay for them.
If you are a masochist, the "report" is here.