Increasing home ownership lowers economic growth. People tend to move jobs less often and have longer commutes both of which reduces economic efficiency. People also tend to rent places which more closely match their needs further reducing waste. AKA, renting and there is no need for a kids room until you have kids, but when buying you may need to plan for your needs in 5+ years out.

Further, people really do rent the same place for 30+ years when their job and family situation is stable, which incentives similar levels of improvement.

Source?

Housing has driven US GDP growth since WW2 or earlier, so that's a pretty big leap.

Housing != home ownership. Anyway, I have read this a few places, but here is the first link I found. "Regions with higher home ownership created fewer new businesses, had longer commute times, and lower rates of labor mobility." http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/08/the-deep-do...

Further, GDP is a very short term view of the economy. Daycare is a classic example where going from an informal to formal system nominally increases GDP much more than the net increase in value.

> You might not garden w/ no equitable return on house value (or at least not build a large gardening setup)

The return is the experience and joy of gardening, which occurs whether I own or rent.

> landlords feel the same way in reverse (no benefit to them to do anything beyond the minimum once it's inhabited)

I'm willing to pay more in rent for a higher quality residence. A well maintained garden (or the tools to make one) would certainly count towards quality.

> Except you may be more nomadic. Also you missed the GP's use of the word "stakeholder" of which you are considerably less of if you don't own land in the community

Even if I live in a place for a single week, I don't want to live in a shithole for that week. My experience living in a neighborhood makes me a stakeholder, even if I don't own land there.

When I rented I gardened. I haven't the slightest clue why you believe someone wouldn't garden when they rent. In fact the place I rented I picked because I could garden.

>I haven't the slightest clue why you believe someone wouldn't garden when they rent.

I do. My sister likes to garden, and when she was renting she put a lot of effort into creating a large, beautiful garden.

Then the landlord decided she needed to move her ailing mother closer and terminated my sister's lease. After that my sister didn't bother with a garden until she bought a house.

As a landlord, I'd be pretty unhappy with tenants gardening on my land -- that's just an extra expense as I'd have to maintain it or convert it back when they leave. Maybe if they signed a long lease...

Hence "might" and the parenthetical "or at least not build a large gardening setup". To rephrase, without ownership of the asset, the renter (and landlord after contract signed) is less incentivized to "work the land" for whatever definition of that you have. Sometimes the setup (irrigation, structural changes, etc) is not worth it or not allowed to the renter. Also unfair to use your anecdotal opinion of whether or not to garden to keep from having the slightest clue why other renters might not.