The thought that homes don’t require upkeep is insane. I’ve lived in my home for just five years and have spent tens of thousands in just maintenance alone.

Yes, but you don't pay a landlord and a cleaner and a plumber the same, why?

Because they derive value not from their labour but from supply and demand, thus those who own assets derive value primarily from the rarity of such assets. This pressure for increasing rarity is why capitalism is a failure where the overall trend is downward, where the few hoard assets they get off other assets, and the masses who trade in their labour have that labour become increasingly less and less valuable.

That would probably mean that the pay is much less unless the maintenance is required every other day

No, all housing should be publicly owned to prevent landlordism and accumulation of capital, so where you will be moving from and moving to will all be owned socially regardless, the way you pick which housing you will use as your personal property for that period of time or any period of time does not have to change at all from how it is now: a website.

That's the ideal. For the time being, we should have more social housing and levy massive taxes on landlords, forcing them to either sell and turn that to social housing, taking it off the "market" permanently or pay enormous taxes that: 1) Fund socialized housing, 2) Make purchasing properties as investments unprofitable and 3) Fund building more (alongside nationalizing construction).

I used the words "socialize", "nationalized" and "publicly owned" interchangeably here. The answers differ on who you ask, but the above is what we should be doing, IMO.

Believe it or not, yes, this is what people used to do before the early 1900s

We call it a "dormitory" instead of a "hotel", but yes.

Alternatively, they can buy a house, or a share of a house, and sell that house/share when they leave.