Hacker News Reader

Not saying I agree, but the concept is that 50% more capacity on the market drives down prices so much that renters can afford to own.

Obviously not everyone could afford, and not everyone wants to, and that transition process would be dramatically inefficient. (For example, inspectors could charge a fortune with so many people trying to buy so many homes)

View on HN

But it's sort of obvious to me that to wouldn't push prices down so much that most renters, some of whom are quite poor and and have poor credit, could own.

Plus, even if you are putting 50% more capacity on the market, you are also putting multiples of that in demand on the market, since renters who don't know each other often live in the same house.

The end goal is not the problem.

It's ridiculous to suggest outlawing 50% of a state's living arrangement.

Good solutions consider the current state, they don't skip past it entirely

Reply on news.ycombinator.com