It's an intersting contradiction trying to square what seems to be two completely different approches to housing. You seem to be mainly concerned with having stable housing on your own terms as your priority. This article seems to be targeted toward those whose priority is capital gains. While you and I see a house as a place to live, the market sees housing as a financial asset and the main financial asset available to the average person. Through that lens, this article demonstrates that one could actually lose money on their investment instead of gaining it implying it would be better to invest elsewhere.

The own nothing and like it model works very well for plutocrats since what they "own" are valuable financial assets which can be leveraged to borrow as much tax-free cash as they want for as long as they live, using their unlimited credit to borrow more cash to pay back the loans until they die. A step below that are people who understand that it's always better to risk the bank's money than one's own and live their lives on credit as well. That's all the capitalists who can basically live through arbitrage. The model breaks down a bit for us workers who are expected to behave like capitalists but without access to the credit that comes from the social classes described above. There are some people who luck out doing this, but this system was not made for regular people. I personally would rather live like a person with a house.