The issue is not that most of us don't have enough house, but rather MOST OTHER people don't have enough investments. If you own a $70,000 house and $30,000 in stocks, then you've hit the 70% they mention...and sadly I think this is where many Americans are.
I really wonder about the statistics of this - if it is true that most are in that type of situation, what does that say about the future....and their ability to 'raid' other people's cookie jars? As I ponder the ER and FI situation, I see some distinct differences: 1) one can try and optimize their living expenses such that they minimize those expense - however, with the probable inflation explosion and increase in tax confiscation, it seems as if that expenses optimization line will re-adjust higher, with less of the amount being discretionary; 2) be so damn wealthy, you don't care. I'm grappling with where the middle ground is and am having a hard time finding it. Any ideas? Or am I just trying to have a better crystal ball as many of the posters here post about?
On topic - CA, NY, DC - areas where people would be house rich and other asset poor. I find that many of the authors of these 'articles' tend to live in those areas and skew their article to that audience.
Lastly, if the above is true (70% of net worth is house), and the non-scientific review of the posters on this board and their percentage (avg 15%), this group of people on this board is quite a unique one and it seems a rare one......