[fintstone]

Originally Posted by CRH911S

I can agree with the "in the money" comment but after that the remarks are questionable.
My parents worked hard and eventually purchased a home, one block west of Brand Park, in Glendale, Ca. in the early 60's but before that they purchased their business' in North Hollywood back when vines still lined Magnolia. To make a long story short North Hollywood Redevelopment purchased my parent's propertys, situated near the corner of Lankershim/Magnolia and Union Oil the corner lot. But this wasn't until nearly thirty plus years later. Being a farmer from Iowa and rancher from Montana my parents didn't have much but their land. Through it all they say people get rich and the same people go broke but they always had their land and their value of an honest days work for an honest days pay...

The typical person in this country cannot expect the home they live in to significantly fund their retirement with 15-20 years af appreciation...because they still need a place to live. Obviously, there are rare circumstances (buying in Hollywood in the '60's or finding oil on your property). Although home ownership is a large portion of most folks retirement planning, the place one lives does not make that great a piggy bank, because even if it greatly appreciates and you sell it, you likely have to buy another home at similarly appreciated prices to live in unless you choose a much lesser home or less expensive part of the country...and most folks do not want to work their entire life to live in a shack after retirement. If one wants to fund a significant portion of their retirement with real estate, IMHO, they need to have rental property.

On the other hand, retiring without owning your own home would really be difficult for most...as incomes are usually significantly less.