You can't fathom that someone might not want an ownership stake in the property they happen to reside in, that there could possibly be a downside to that.
You know how it's recommended to sell employee stock grants asap, so your not over indexed into your employer? I.E. if the company you're working for performs poorly or goes under, you don't want to lose your job and wealth, and if it does well, you'll keep making money at your job anyway, so there's no advantage to investing more of your personal capital into your employer than you would if they weren't employing you (barring insider trading).
It's funny that people rarely seem to apply the same reasoning to their dwelling place.
I think everybody has to be obliged, at least once, to move within a year or two of buying a house, just so they can understand what it is to take a huge bath on closing costs.
And that's before you get to things like the furnace going, or the roof failing. Two kinds of people with this "landlords provide absolutely no services" perspective: people so comfortable financially that the y-o-y costs of maintaining a property don't even register, and renters who have never owned and been on the hook for an urgent big-ticket maintenance problem.
I never said homeownership. Just a place to live thats not owned by a ruthless corporation that spends every day trying to squeeze every penny possible out of the tenant
It's funny that people rarely seem to apply the same reasoning to their dwelling place.