Decades ago when housing prices and pay were better aligned, there was a much better chance of being able to scrape by if it came down to that, plus it was easier to pay the house off in a reasonable amount of time giving that less of a chance to occur.
Point in case, where I live a pretty typical pre-interest-spike house payment is twice the gross income of someone working a full time minimum wage job which doesn’t cover food, utilities, clothes, etc. Not only does this put ownership out of reach for a lot of people, but makes it possible to quickly turn precarious for even many of those who can afford it.
And this just gets worse for more expensive areas where the disparity is much more extreme like in the SF Bay Area.
I was curious why you believed that. Other commenters have helped me understand why you believe that's the case. My opinion is that we're in the middle of a housing shortage in many places. Interest rates are up, but people are still buying houses, so the liability, for places where people are still buying houses isn't three "much"es level of liability in my mind (and my area). If it becomes a millstone around your neck, sell the house. Which is easier said than done, but that's where I'm coming from.
* far less job stability -- you don't get a gig for life, or at least 20 years like Grandpa did, and Dad could at least ride the boom and growth cycles of the 90s and 2000s
* housing costs a lot more, and even if you can afford it you're far more apt to be fired, which makes it risky to stick your neck out
* no safety nets, and brutal conditions in the job market mean if you catch an axe then you're out of luck -- that house is now a big ole liability
Just because folks got a cheap rate on houses doesn’t mean they can afford the risk over a lifetime.
Boomers could work relatively simple jobs and pay off a house. Right now a house is a much much much larger liability than it has ever been