I think you are correct. This NYT (free sub required) article mentions that for most of the post-WWII era, prices rose at an inflation adjusted 1.1% yearly. Higher in the 1990s, but only 4% and that is considered an aberration.
FWIW, the title of the article is “Housing Fades as a Means to Build Wealth, Analysts Say”
I have nearly paid off my mortgage and as an investment, the house has not done all that well. It has been an excellent ‘enforced savings plan’ however.
Here is a chart showing historical house prices, adjusted for inflation. It shows clearly the dramatic bubble and that we still have not yet reverted to normal levels. And it confirms that houses have generally not been a wealth builder.
But they are a wealth builder in the sense that every month you build more equity in the home. That money can be passed on to your kids to help them purchase a home.
Even though it is an illiquid asset, you can still open a line of credit against your equity for use in tough times. (I mean responsibly, not using your home like an ATM as was done in the last several years).
That’s true. As long as you have a sensible mortgage (not interest-only or other exotic non-principal paying things), then the home will approximately maintain value with inflation, in general, and your mortgage payments will build wealth.
My initial response was better aimed at people viewing a home as an investment, especially if they expect large gains.