Leverage works both ways, it will amplify both gains and losses.
This only "builds real wealth" for one person. For the larger system consisting of all 6 people, it's a net loss (the interest payments are still leaving, upwards). We've built a financial system where it is in everybody's self interest to make everybody else worse off.
The positive sum progress from the economy was enough to outrun this setup when there was abundant energy and foreign countries to colonize, hence the focus on "growth". But that era is over, and we're now stuck with a black hole of debt that still needs to be serviced...
The justifications/case for home ownership can often be over-hyped. Everything works out well in a rising market. When shit hits the fan, sure my landlord can raise my rent, but I can move to another city for a better job with a very minimal hit. The stock market has created higher long term gains than the real estate market and is a hell of a lot more liquid.
The fact that people say your house is an "asset" is abuse of the definition and IMHO drives people to buy more house than they need. Sure it's an asset, but you also live there. Your liquidity is greatly reduced and your options become very limited.
Rental properties are another story. If you know what you're doing and can afford it, then I don't see issues with using that as an investing strategy. Just maybe don't buy all of them in the same city, or the same type of property. Just like with stocks and side hustles, diversification is important.
However, I'm able to rent and live in a much nicer area than where I could afford to buy.
This is the same in the US, FWIW. Most landlords aren't going to care what you do, as long as you don't damage common areas and return it in mint conditoin.
I can paint the walls, put up pictures (Berlin has better rules than UK/Australia). Not that I do when I can.
I've only been evicted a couple of times, and even then I wanted to move anyway so it was convenient. It's usually me/us moving on and the landlord annoyed that they have to find a new tenant.
And don't forget the wonderful bonus of anything that goes wrong being someone else's problem. Roof leaking? Phone the landlord. Rising damp? Phone the landlord. Mold problems? Neighbours building a new fence? Frost damage to the pathway? Pipes frozen? Window cracked? All not my problem.
Societal wealth is built by one person building a lot of wealth based on others paying him, and just replicating that millions of times over the population.
No, leaving out the critical piece does not represent my claim. Rather you're just shoehorning into the traditional narrative that each person trying to build the most individual wealth inductively extrapolates to society as a whole becoming richer.
The critical part of my claim is:
> For the larger system consisting of all 6 people, it's a net loss
Not merely a loss for 5 and a gain for 1, but a net loss for all 6 parties summed together. Draw a boundary around them and analyze cross-boundary flow. The interest payments flow away, meaning the group is worse off even though the landlord individually benefits.
Our economy is based around debt rather than positive wealth. For someone to have financial wealth, others must be in debt. The shining ideal where everybody is financially independent is impossible under the current system. And the more the financial bubble grows in relation to actual physical wealth, the truer this becomes.
Leverage is the easiest way to make a larger percentage on your money, as long as it's used prudently.
Borrowing money to buy real estate and then collect income is a very common way to leverage your money. Over time that builds real wealth. My friend has bought 5 properties and is renting them all out. When he retires, the properties will have been paid for, and the rental money will act like his pension until he dies.