[xstartup]

Ownership is bad because of this mentality "at least this is something which no one can take away from me".

If you look at countries like India, people blindly invest in Home and it has a big reality market.

In many places, the monthly cost of servicing a home >> the monthly rent you would pay for equivalent housing. But still, new houses are continuously being built.

If the general public did not have this mindset, no one would make their own home if you can get the equivalent of rent for the far lower price.

I believe subscription economy is more efficient and results in the more efficient use of natural resources.

[dv_dt]

One has to question if an individual home owner or a corporation can service a home more inexpensively. If you're the least bit handy, or willing to learn a little, I think a home owner is more efficient. Whatever the fundamental cost of servicing a home, a company is going to add profit, and management administrative overhead to it. Also renters don't take care of their property as well as owners - so even if you individually are easy on your rental property, as a renter end up paying the distributed costs of mistreatment at even a low ratio.

Though there are certainly other advantages to renting, I question the fundamental assumption that a subscription is a more efficient use of resources.

[mayankk]

What are your thoughts on a simple usecase I shared above? A person out his/her job. Unable to afford a subscription and in all probability unable to drive up even for an interview. That’s not a spiral I would anyone lands up in.