Purchasing new homes would count as an investment. According to Blanchard et al. Macroeconomics: a European Perspective pp 568 in glossary investment is defined:
Investment (I): Purchases of new houses and apartments by people, and purchases of new capital good (machines and plants) by firms.
The source above is the leading undergraduate macroeconomics textbook, so although the definition is not rigorous as it is an undergraduate text the houses are not included just haphazardly without thought. Also note the definition does not include land as correctly stressed in Brian's comment.
However, what the author in that book you cite probably has in mind is capital investment, which is specially investment in assets that will be used as factor of production (e.g. machines, trucks, factory). However, capital investments are not defined in terms of jobs that they create. That is, even investing in fully autonomous robot that would replace worker would be capital investment. This being said when capital and labor are complementary, which is still often the case, capital investment will also create more jobs.
Additionally, in economics when we talk about real variables, e.g. real output, real consumer spending, real investment etc. we mean inflation adjusted as opposed to nominal output, nominal consumer spending and nominal investment etc. that would not be inflation adjusted. So the book you are reading also does not seem to be following economic terminology much.
money.stackexchange.combecause it's look like better place for such questions. – Andrew Sasha Oct 22 '20 at 08:22Then, how will you define “creating” jobs? If hiring 100 builders to put up 100 houses “creates jobs” then what happens when the estate is complete, in a few years if not months?
IMHO, the idea that keeping those workers on for my next project “creates” another 100 jobs is risible. Does anyone doubt that?
Does whether those jobs are lost/maintained/protected/extended or what, matter?
– Robbie Goodwin Oct 23 '20 at 20:03