There's a broader concern to the American economy in discouraging labor mobility. There is a benefit to the country's economy in having a mobile labor force and high transaction costs discourage labor mobility.

It's one argument to have more people renting, as there's a lower cost to move for renters than owners.

A country benefits if workers are relatively able and willing to move to wherever demand for labor is. If there's an artificial barrier to such a move, then it makes it harder to connect workers and demand for labor; a worker would be artificially-inclined to work in a less-productive job that didn't require a move and it's harder for an employer who has some more-productive job to manage to get workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_mobility

Labor or worker mobility is the geographical and occupational movement of workers.[1] Impediments to mobility are easily divided into two distinct classes with one being personal and the other being systemic. Personal impediments include physical location, and physical and mental ability. The systemic impediments include educational opportunities as well as various laws and political contrivances and even barriers and hurdles arising from historical happenstance.

Increasing and maintaining a high level of labor mobility allows a more efficient allocation of resources and greater productivity.

That being said, I understand that the American labor force has historically been relatively-mobile, though I recall reading that that has fallen off in recent decades (maybe it's due to the process of urbanization starting to wrap up in the fairly-developed US, as I'm sure that urbanization drives some labor mobility -- gotta move if one is to move to a city).

Can you explain this? I can't make sense of it. If it's a fixed rate, I don't see how it adds to the inflation of the home value.