A home that later becomes too big could be exchanged for one that is appropriately sized, so a larger family could have a home available. However you spin it, you can’t get away from the exploitation.

And don’t be disingenuous, I get paid for labour while landlords get paid for ownership.

What do you mean "exchanged"? Are you suggesting people should just trade a larger (and more expensive) house for a cheaper one? Why on earth would anybody want to do that? They may sell their house and buy a smaller one, but "exchange"? Based on this comment and others of yours it sounds like you don't believe people should own land.

I think everyone should have a decent home. Homes that are too big for their occupants are an inefficient use of a limited resource. I don’t think it’s fair that some would get paid for no labour because of this mid-allocation.