[whinenot]

The typical American's biggest monthly expense is housing. Owning a house drastically reduces your monthly expenses. If you're young, out of work or on a fixed income, minimizing that expense can have an enormous impact on your quality of life and the choices available to you.

The generational wealth kicks in when your heirs can assume your mortgage free lifestyle, generate monthly income from it, borrow against it, or sell an asset that has likely appreciated in value (sometimes greatly) since it was purchased ages ago.

[gmarx]

No it doesn't historically and in most places even in the US. If you live in an unusual area, e.g coastal California, at an unusual time, e.g. the past 20 years then yes if you bought 20 years ago your cost would be much less than equivalent rent. OTOH if you mean own it outright then sure but with 30 year mortgages almost no one would own a house outright until pretty close to retirement. And sure if you inherit a house you can live rent free but for most people who inherit a house it would be 20-30 years before you yourself die, i.e. pretty close to retirement. So yes some people get a nice surprise late in life (but hardly most people- I won't for example). Difficult to see how it would make much difference in someones life course

[dionidium]

The average age of inheritance is like 50 and the average sum inherited is like $40k (these numbers are from memory). I couldn't figure out what percentage of people ever receive an inheritance at all, but I don't think it's large.

Plainly, this is not generating "generational wealth" that's giving people an enormous head start.

These tropes are repeated uncritically because people want them to represent large effects.