there is actually a popular home-buying program that works sort of like that, in Germany. Not prescribed by a law, of course.
The story is that in a village nobody had enough down payment to buy. Together they saved up a down payment to buy 1 house. They had a lottery and the winner would get the poolās fund to be able to buy his house. They would then keep paying into the pool until the 2nd guy (picked by lottery) etcā¦
Today these pools have a million or more members, and when you join one of them, they give you an estimate but no guarantee when it will be your turn. They will say something āno earlier than in 6 years and no later than in 10 yearsā. Once it is your turn, you switch from āsaving for the poolā to āpaying loanā. Back in the 90ies, you would earn guaranteed 4%-5% on your savings (more than any bank would offer) and borrow at 6% (much cheaper than a bank loanā¦ I got my 5-yr ARM at ~8%, IIRC).
The big downside is that you have to wait until itās your turn; thatās when everyone wishes he had joined at age 16 (or even earlier).
With regards to San Francisco or N.Y., I think itās normal for such cities that they have low ownership rates. Itās like that in every big city. I guess except in Singapore!
| Rank | Country | Home ownership rate(%) | Date of Information |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Romania | 96.4 | 2015 |
| 2 | Singapore | 90.8 | 2015 |
| 3 | Slovakia | 90.3 | 2014 |
| 4 | China | 90 | 2014 |
| 5 | Cuba | 90.0 | 2014 |
| 6 | Croatia | 89.7 | 2014 |
| 7 | Lithuania | 89.4 | 2015 |
| 8 | India | 86.6 | 2011 |
| 9 | Hungary | 86.3 | 2015 |
| 10 | Russia | 84.0 | 2012 |
| ** | |||
| 36 | Canada | 67.6 | 2013 |
| ** | |||
| 42 | United States | 64.5 | 2014 |
| 43 | United Kingdom | 63.5 | 2015 |
| 44 | Denmark | 62.7 | 2015 |
| 45 | Japan | 61.6 | 2008 |
| 46 | Austria | 55.0 | 2016 |
| 47 | South Korea | 54.2 | 2010 |
| 48 | Germany | 51.9 | 2015 |
| 49 | Hong Kong | 51.0 | 2014 |
| 50 | Switzerland | 43.4 | 2015 |
Seems like the higher developed a country is, the more renters you have. Strong renter protection (and social network on generalā¦).
Population density is another likely factor, which is why Sweden and Finland have rather high % owners.
This list basically says that:
If you go the socialism and communism route, more poeple will own their homes, wealth will be more evenly distributed, but everyone just enjoys a lower standard of living generally.
Though Iām suspicious of Cuba number. Arenāt houses in Cuba owned by government and the residents are just users, not owners?
Which is why the only people advocating for socialism and communism are people poorer than average. They donāt realize that thereās a very good chance theyād also be poorer under socialism or communism. They donāt care though, since the evil rich people would lose even more.
You can be a data scientist 
Same in Russia
Did Russia privatize its formerly government owned and resident used housing? It should have done that to transition to a real capitalistic country.
Why is North Korea not in the list? It probably has no tenant existing since government gives everyone free housing and no one is homeless.
South Koreaās low homeownership rate is surprising. My impression is that South Korean wealth gap is low.
Singapore is at the top of the list. It is a democracy. It is a developed nation. An odd ball to your guysā hypothesis?
Communist system means that all properties belong to the states. Why would communist countries have high homeownership rate? Shouldnāt that be low instead?
Singapore and Hong Kong are mostly viewed as the most capitalist economies. One is at top of list and another at bottom.
My Mother in law has been in the same apartment since 1955. Hasnāt been maintained. The State gives her free rent, the right to pass it on to heirs and the right to buy it. She does not want to buy. Some day the Moscow government will tear it down and give her the right to a new apartment
Singapore land is mostly owned by the government, right?
My understanding is that Singapore people mostly live in BMR apartments with some constraint on ownership.
āMore than three-quarters of the land in Singapore is state-owned and held by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) which acts as custodian of the land. The remainder is comprised of the few pockets of freehold land held by other government departments such as HDB, JTC, PSA and privateā
Huh?
See above quote.
Singapore is extremely small, just a city. Its population has not much variance. Itās more like China than US. Government has a lot of power to force people to buy homes.
Singaporeās high homeownership is the result of government coercion. And Singapore is not a Democracy.
80% of Singaporeans live in government BMR apartments that comes with heavy subsidy and social control.
Without governmentās social controls, Singapore homeownership rate should be similar to South Korea and HongKong. Singapore is definitely an oddball in its ownership rate.
Lack of freedom and abundance of disciplines make Singapore low crime and low poverty. Liberalism is the source of high crime and high poverty?
Good luck with SFR rentalsā¦
It makes no sense. Nobody will want anything to do with building or putting additional rentals on the market in those cities choosing rent control. Even scarier is the possibility of vacancy decontrol being eliminated 
Californiaā¦ in 10-15 years will not be what we knowā¦ once the companies leaveā¦ somebody needs to turn off the lightsā¦ & then the Californians will go to the other states to screw them over. 