While the house isn't producing, it is expense reducing, and that works out to be the same thing. Assuming that the house is paid for, of course, if your net worth is really only $300K, odds are you don't have the house paid for either: social Security is the bulk of your income, which, it's enough to live on, but it isn't a life of luxury.

>so not income-producing

Depends on what you consider a reverse mortgage/equity loan they plan to die before paying.

Very true. And the way things are going, just in the English-speaking countries, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, those between 18 and 40 are having more trouble buying that house or condo.

Those luxury apartments are going up everywhere, at least in the United States. $2200 a month with amenities for a one bedroom studio.

> The median Boomer has a net worth of $300-$400K, the largest fraction of which is probably their house (so not income-producing)

What? Do you not live in your house?