I think we agree that there needs to be housing people can afford if they earn whatever the min wage is for their locale.  Now, let's do a thought experiment starting from this premise.

We'll set the min wage at $15/hr for $30K/year.  Using the federal guideline of <30% as affordable, we'll make the annual mortgage payments right at 30% for 9000/yr, or $750/mo.  We'll now do this as private property so they can store the money in the house resale value.  So the mortgage monthly payment is $750.  We'll set a fixed rate of interest at 5% (historically very cheap) and make the term 20 years as it was before around 1970.  Prewar, mortgages were even shorter, 15 years was common.  Using an online mortgage calculator, the house would sell for around $125K.

Now, you buy this house in Podunk and you have a job in the local paper plant and work for 20 years and pay it off.  You want to sell it to someone else for $125K. But then the plant closes and the town loses population, and lots of the workers with these houses want to sell them.  Except with no work around, they are lucky if they can sell for $50K.

You see how making housing a commodity and trying to use it to store wealth are at odds, even with very fair banking practices.  The commodity is subject to supply and demand pressures, and you can't count on what the value will be at the end of the mortgage term.  You could also be lucky and the neighborhood will get a high paying Battery plant in town, and your house might sell for double what you paid.

Of course, you can pretty much forget buying a McHovel anywhere these days for $125K, even a total slum.

RE