The argument in favor of ownership is that the inhabitants take an actual stake in the community and property instead of figuring, "Eh, I'm moving on soon enough so there's not point in upkeep/participation."

That, however, can be addressed by ownership of condos, or some kind of joint ownership with explicitly spelled out rights and responsibilities for both parties. What's clear is that if you want to encourage such behaviors the tenant should have more of a stake and guarantee against sudden eviction than a security deposit.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a permanent underclass, though. IMO, everyone ought to be able to get their 40 acres and a mule, or if 40 is too many, then at least one or two.

I don't buy the argument of "tying workers down in one place." You know what else does that? Family and friends. Is this enough justification for Krugman to say that we shouldn't get married or procreate? You can't be expected to uproot your family, say "goodbye" to all your friends, and go where the jobs are. I refuse to be a corporate drone, putting my career ahead of my family or friends.

And borrowing money to buy a home is not at all like buying stocks on margin. It's quite a bit like becoming your own landlord. I know that no landlord would have let us paint a jungle mural on the walls of our daughter's bedroom, let alone alowed us to turn a portion of the backyard into a garden.

Suburbs are going away, but home ownership most certainly is not.

Krugman is a Statist and everything he says spins that way. The problem with his fantasies is that in the real world, governments are run by people like Dick Cheney for the benefit of companies like Haliburton and Citibank. Their goal is for nobody to own anything but have to rent everything from them.

The real question is Krugman that blind or is he one of them?

I might change my mind but in any case, I really don't see the big deal in owning a home.
To me it's just a continuous bill.
There are people today that owe huge mortgages on homes that aren't even worth the mortgage taken out on them.

I don't see why home ownership has to be a requirement in order to be invested in your community. I plan on renting for all my life AND I'll be involved in my community with many things. What's wrong with having the option to pack up and leave whenever you want? Some people just don't like the idea of staying in one place forever.
I would rather have people move around a lot and make a positive impact wherever they leave than have someone stick around in one place forever and not make any kind of contribution to their community.

When you rent, you are essentially paying off someone else's mortgage.

The Problems with Home Ownership

-Financial risk. "Although it’s rarely put this way, borrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake."

how are you going to "lose his or her entire stake"? you buy a house for $150,000 and when you try to sell it it's worth $0? granted you will most likely not make money on a house, thats why you work isnt it?

Icelander: Exactly. We aren't "workers," we're human beings who have jobs. The job isn't life,it's the thing you do to pay for your life.

@courtney How is your rent payment *not* one continuous bill?

I'm not sure I'm in love with the idea of "Home Ownership".
First thing is you never really own a house. States are increasing property taxes and are refusing to lower them to reflect lower property values. Is a home really an asset? With maintence, insurance, trash removal fees, water bills, property taxes etc..Is it smart to pay two are three times the value of a liability over the life of the loan?

This is socialism at it's finest.