[danaris]

> So if you want to move to a city for two years for a temporary job contract and rent a house... you literally can't.

That still doesn't follow.

The total amount of housing stock will not change, and nor will the total amount of people needing housing of whatever type (besides some movement on the margins of both).

There is no reason to believe that, in an environment where renting is no longer a viable option, everyone will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I guess all of this is necessarily going to be long-term purchase property, handled exactly the same way we handled homeownership before this change—big closing costs and all."

Yes, obviously, by definition, if renting is not an option, people who want to rent will be out of luck—but that doesn't mean that the people who want to rent today would have no viable options for housing after such a change took place. I don't know exactly what the solution would look like, because it would depend heavily on what specific changes we made that made renting properties out no longer viable, but it's really not that hard to imagine them.

[crazygringo]

> I don't know exactly what the solution would look like

And that's exactly the problem. If you're not proposing a solution for how to continue providing rentals to the people who need them, then you're not proposing any workable solution at all.

Your solution was "convert it all to owner-occupied housing" and I was pointing out that doesn't work because it ignores the needs of renters.

[danaris]

I explicitly said I don't know what the solution would look like because the change proposed is generic.

Give me a specific proposal for how to break the rentier economy, and I can probably give you a specific proposal for how to solve the problems it raises.