Maybe I'm just sandwiched between those generations but I don't see how those are equivalent. The desire for stable housing isn't a social construct. If you can't secure that you'll always be stressed.
Stable housing isn’t limited to owning a single family home. Renting a small apartment can be very stable (I’ve done this for the past 15 years). Owning a small condo can be very stable. There are also many stressed homeowners who worry about making mortgage payments.
The reason many see these as unstable today is because of the default-ness of single family housing as the default goal. Similarly how driving a car was the default goal for 16 year olds for several generations.
It’s hard to imagine not wanting to purchase a home because we’ve been sold it as the smart and obvious thing to do for quite awhile now.
Also, renting from a private landlord and owning are not the only two options that can exist. Social housing can be incredibly stable as well, and there are lots of different possible models for social housing.
I read an article recently (can't find it immediately) proposing a social housing mechanism where you pay into it via rent and gain equity not in the specific housing unit itself, but rather in the social housing program as a whole. Kind of like a REIT, only at a certain point you get an entitlement to a housing unit and no longer have to pay rent, as if you'd paid off a mortgage.
Renting might be stable but it's very dependant on whoever owns the house and what type of regulations and protections your government has in place. Owning a home (house/apartment/land/etc) gives you more rights over where you live and more stability in most countries.
I've seen rents go up with inflation where inflation grows at 25% yoy, and I've seen people kicked out of an apartment 3 months after moving in because the owner found a buyer with a good deal.
But I agree with you, single family housing is the goal for some cultures and generations, and it was carefully crafted by governmental policy, propaganda, marketing and third party interests. We are now seeing the consequences of such.
Yet, not all people have that goal, but a lot are content to just owning a place to live even with relatives, a community or others.
I feel it's hard to not wanting to own something if it grants more rights and protections against injustices. In the countries I've lived, having a property deed of any sorts with your name on it makes your life so much better and stress free.
For a counter perspective, think about home ownership as not stable, but inflexible. It doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, does it?
A lot of this comes down to what an individual values and my argument is that what individuals value when it comes to housing will change drastically over the coming 50 or so years.
You would be surprised how adaptable people are, everybody owning their house and this being some yardstick of success is very US-centric construct.
Here in most of Europe its luxury with 2 faces - it costs significantly more of your money, time and energy to own it. Is it worth spending the little free time you have in your life with just plain stupid property maintenance? For me its a skill I happily delegate to (much) less earning fellows, and I spend that time with family, doing sports and adventures or just relaxing.
Ie in Switzerland, due to way property taxes are setup, its very ineffective to fully own your house. To inherit is sort of curse or at least a burden, you usually immediately have to sell. Nobody apart from few whiny expacts complaints about it, people have actual lives to take care of and focus on much more important matters.
What required maintenance are people doing all the time that is taking up their free time? Everything I can think about are things that renters still need to deal with, like cleaning. The only big US thing I can think of is lawn mowing, which, as crazy as it sounds to a lot of Americans, is not a requirement to have outside of very strict HOAs. And you can also just pay someone to do it if you still want a lawn.
