[Xavdidtheshadow]

When people turn a necessity (housing) into an investment (and by extension, a source of profit), then people/companies with means will buy up as much as they can and hold it, reducing the supply and raising the price of something that people _have_ to have. So, saying rent is "determined by market value" as if "the market" is an impartial omniscient force is misleading.

For a lot of the 20th century, _most_ people could buy a house regardless of their chosen occupation ("most" is doing a lot of work here- there's a long history of racism tied into housing acquisition, but my basic point is the same). You could be a blue collar tradesman and buy a house for your family of 4. So yes, I think that's definitely a (theoretical) possibility.

It's not outlandish either. We already have a much healthier model to copy: cars. There's no one buying up _all_ the cars and then leasing them to you at artificially high prices. There's (normally, chip shortages notwithstanding) plenty of cars and you can pick what best suits you- new / old / cheap / expensive / fancy / plain / etc. Housing could be the same way if the goal wasn't to extract profit out of those who can't afford to buy (or weren't born 60 years ago).