I think the argument here is directly analogous to why university prices started going loony. When it became impossible for even private education loans to be d

I think the argument here is directly analogous to why university prices started going loony. When it became impossible for even private education loans to be dismissed in bankruptcy suddenly education loans became seen as very near 0 risk. And everybody's told from the time they're in diapers that they need to go to university, with cost given little to no consideration. And it's also seen as priceless investment that will pay for itself and then some in the future. Suddenly people value something immensely and have access to an effectively unlimited line of debt. This incentives universities to arbitrarily increase their costs. University costs only started to stabilize as university enrollment started to decline. But there's a big argument against this that I don't see the answer to. Everything that's mentioned in this article is true for buying a house, but not for renting. Rental prices have also gone through the roof - and the only reason they're able to go through the roof is because people are able and willing to pay the costs asked. But people renting are getting absolutely no return whatsoever on this exchange, and rent is also generally not paid from debt. So how would this explain the willingness of people to pay ever higher prices for rent?