I don't own a home, and don't advocate owning one for anyone who is younger and needs to move to find great employment, but a HUGE potential error jumped out at

I don't own a home, and don't advocate owning one for anyone who is younger and needs to move to find great employment, but a HUGE potential error jumped out at me right away. Home ownership accelerates in markets which are more leveraged to housing. Take Florida for example. Many people who live there work in various real estate jobs, when prices start to rise, they rise much more rapidly by percentage, and they fall much more rapidly. If the majority of a state's high paying jobs are in real estate, more people will be jobless following boom and bust cycles. Additionally, more people will be getting raises, high commission checks etc. which leads to greater home ownership in those states. Without knowing if the author of the paper took this in to account, the research is completely worthless. Cyclicality in finance is a constant major issue and should be examined not only systematically, but also by asset class, area etc. Cyclicality usually explains a very great degree of issues with research. [added] A second potential explanation is that the 3 best markets for jobs have the highest prices on houses which prevents people from buying. New York, San Fran, Boston. Obviously California would go against my previous explanation.