I sense just a touch of catastrophising going on here…
If we were civil engineers it would be shocking for the public to learn that we are sometimes ordered build the bridges terribly on purpose, for something like the purpose that it influences people toward using toll roads -- when in the world of software engineering not only has this kind of anti-user (anti-human) behaviour become commonplace but actually it's increasingly the only novel work we do between gluing other people's code together.
There's nothing wrong with wooden houses! They're a cost-effective method of building, and with proper care, such houses will last over a hundred years. Masonry buildings, of course, also need care to avoid falling apart, though probably less so than wooden buildings.
I don't know where it is that you're from, but I'd wager that large parts of the US sees harsher climate conditions. Between hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires, American houses have to deal with a lot. Properly-constructed wooden houses handle what they need to.
Sure, you could say that all else equal, a masonry structure is more durable than a wooden one. But as they say, anyone can build a bridge that stands, but only an engineer can build a bridge that barely stands. Cost is always an object in the real world.