[claudiulodro]

In a vacuum, sure it's a bad investment. A house as described in the article is basically one that you buy and neither live in nor rent out. An empty and unused house is indeed a bad investment.

When people say a house is a good investment they mean, "Given that people need someplace to live and will be paying the cost and maintenance for lodging, a house is a good investment since that cost benefits an asset you own".

[tommiegannert]

It was also a very simple way of making people save money for retirement: the bank would require you to slowly pay off the loan, so in the end, at least you'd own a house. In a world gaining population, you also have a speculative aspect, but it was a good idea even without that. At least it protected the real value of your savings.

With laxing repayment requirements, volatile markets, and easier access to other investment types, times have changed. If you know where you want to live, it's still an easy way to save money, but a stock market index fund is equally simple to use.