But you have/had a job, which suggests that the house was really purchased as a capital asset in which to use to profit.

Umm, no. Shelter is a requirement, whether employed or not. Given that I have never changed where I live in order to take a job, my choices regarding shelter have always been independent of my choice of income generating activity. Just the opposite, in fact, given that I've had to change my shelter based on loss of income, but have never had to change my shelter when income increased.

That you can still derive benefit from it later in life is just a nice side benefit.

No that is just one of the actual reasons for making the housing choices I've made. I have never had a house so that I could work, but have always had to work in order to stay sheltered.

Another reason for my housing choices is related to hobbies. It's hard to do hobby manufacturing or host band rehearsals in a condo.

I suspect you're not moving to a location where there is no job market to free up the productive asset for younger people when you retire?

Why would that be necessary or desirable either individually or societally? I didn't choose my home for it's proximity to work. I didn't move when I changed jobs or when my employer moved to a different location. I developed my garden and built a shop for recreation and don't see how anyone will be served by pulling up stakes and moving somewhere else, especially given that my choice of housing had nothing to do with proximity to employment, but proximity to outdoor recreational activities.

Rentals would sort of work. One important thing I learned during the period of time we rented was that it left too many important decisions in the hands of people whose interests did not align with ours.