You're exaggerating to the point of parody. It's totally valid to choose an alternate lifestyle, if that's what you want. It's great that there are more opport

You're exaggerating to the point of parody. It's totally valid to choose an alternate lifestyle, if that's what you want. It's great that there are more opportunities for people to do that, while retaining flexibility and access to different services. But it's important to also be aware of the factors that might be forcing people into accepting alternate lifestyles when they don't want to. It's not about "choos[ing] not to own a 4,000 sq. ft. McMansion", but about being unable to own or even rent a modest living space, even if you'd rather not be sleeping in your vehicle or a "pod". A movement towards corporate rentiership is something that we should absolutely critically examine the wider effects of. There is a cost associated with renting of property or services – and that's fine, if you're willing to pay the cost in exchange for increased flexibility. But it does seem like there's an issue where things like property ownership end up completely out of reach of otherwise affluent people, because capital is so concentrated in the hands of a rentier class. Maybe you don't like the word "homeless", but I can't help but feel you're creating the stigma for yourself.