Yes, home ownership provides a way for people to accumulate wealth that is tax advantaged by US government policy. But does it provide the same benefit in countries without that tax advantage? And is that advantage enough to offset the reduced labor mobility that home ownership brings[1].
[1]https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/05/link-betweeen-high-leve...
That's too counter-intuitive for me. I'd need a lot more than one article to change my mind on this.
All other things being equal, if you're paying down a mortgage rather than lining someone else's pocket that has to be a good thing for you. Because when you have the mortgage paid off you own a property.
Just because in some places (like parts of Europe) there are tenant councils and strong tenant rights which makes being a tenant less bad doesn't then make the reverse situation (working towards owning your own home) less good.
And just because there are negative externalities to homeownership in a certain job market says just as much about that particular job market as it does about homeownership.
It's more that the counter-position broadly applied over the long run is untenable.
If you don't own the home you live in and/or the land it stands on then you are by definition renting that property. A portion of your labour is going straight to someone who owns at least one home and some land thus depending on how long this goes on for drives inequality.
It's not called “Rentier Capitalism” for nothing you know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism
If people have a decent chance to own their own home and land it gives them an avenue to a better life, if they don't it doesn't.