Including the primary residence is cheating.

I think it's a reasonable definition of net worth. Note that they subtract debts, also logical, so it's only a measure of the equity. A person who owns their house is unquestionably richer than someone with otherwise identical paper assets who doesn't.

Where are they going to go? Middle of West Virginia is not a practical option for many. Neither is renting.

Rents have popped in a lot of places lately and seem above trend, so in that sense you make a case. But normally renting IS a pretty practical and sensible thing. The only reason the consensus US opinion seems counter to that is because it's perhaps the most socialized/subsidized housing market in the world. And because a lot of the opinion you hear is from the wealthier, house-owning classes.

As an aside, US residential real estate is (I've read) the single largest asset class in the world. It would seem odd to measure global wealth while counting that at zero : )

Jim