Controversial take:
We need to step back from the emotional framing of the “housing affordability crisis” and look at it through a longer-term, structural lens.
Homeownership played an outsized role in wealth creation for prior generations, but it did so under a very specific set of conditions that no longer exist in the same way.
When the environment changes, it is a mistake to assume the same strategies must remain optimal.
Much of what people perceive as housing “outperformance” is actually the result of leverage and forced savings, not superior returns.
Over decades, homeowners inject large amounts of additional capital, accept illiquidity, and take on concentrated risk.
When compared honestly, housing succeeded less because it was a great asset and more because it bundled leverage, inflation protection, and lifestyle consumption into a single, default savings vehicle.
The decline in housing affordability does not automatically mean future generations are doomed to be poorer. The opportunity set has shifted.
Work is more flexible, capital requirements to build businesses are lower, and wealth creation is no longer as tightly coupled to owning physical property.
Homeownership still has real personal and lifestyle value, and for many people it will continue to make sense. The mistake is treating it as a financial inevitability or a moral benchmark.
The broader point is about adaptation: the rules have changed, and building wealth today requires clearer thinking, flexibility, and a willingness to move beyond models optimized for a different era.
I dive deeper into this topic and run the numbers in the most recent issue of FIRE BTC.
You can check it out here:
Don’t forget to subscribe if you found this interesting. I hit your inbox each week with takes on personal finance and bitcoin.
🏠 Homeward Bound
FIRE BTC Issue 61 - Is housing affordability really a crisis?
