16 millions vacant houses across the US, not counting the empty offices buildings. 11 millions houses empty in Europe. In both cases enough vacancy to houses the homeless population and more.
A big thing is where are those homes located? Are they near social services? Are they near jobs? Skills training? Is putting a homeless person in them with no income going to allow said homeless person to build a life?
Most homeless go to cities where there are social services, and lots of people around so they can beg for an income. Most empty houses are not in cities.
This has always felt like one of those arguments that just kicks the can.
Yes, there are 100% some homeless people who are in such a bad place that they’d outright refuse a home even if you gave it to them free of charge (or would immediately sell it for drug money/burn it down because it’s filled with alien Spyware or something), but I’d wager that if you actually gave a lot of these people a stable home, and food in their fridge so they weren’t literally fighting for their lives on the street, they’d be able to self improve a lot more than people give them credit for.
A lot of homeless are just people who had one bad turn after another and are just unable to break the cycle because our system really isn’t built to let them do so. I think we should also be providing mental Healthcare and addiction support to these people, but saying that should come before giving them a sense of stability and safety is ass backwards imo
Other countries are being more aggressive about providing housing for the unhoused. Notably, Finland has been putting people in sponsored housing since the late 80’s. The net result is a rapidly decreasing unhoused population. Most of the people who are given homes get on their feet, get the kinds of support they need, and reach a good place in life. weforum.org/…/how-finland-solved-homelessness
Many articles title it that Finland has “solved” homlessness, which isn’t 100% true, but the approach has been wildly successful compared to most other nation’s strategies.
If this was five years ago, I’d agree with you. But the Chinese national government has been clamping down on new construction for the past few years. China is also experiencing almost no population growth.
There was always going to be a time for China to stop building housing because the supply would eventually outstrip demand. Now seems to be near that time.
There are two reasons why it is a problem for China.
First is that housing investment is a main way that Chinese people save for retirement. So if the market adjusts, you can have a lot of elderly Chinese who no longer have their nest eggs.
Second is that most Chinese municipal budgets are based on developing land. Without demand for new housing, Chinese cities are going to need bailouts from the national government.
Not so great if large aspects of your economic growth is tied to the real estate market. Theoretically the value of property is tied in some way to scarcity. If there is an abundance of housing, then there’s not a real reason for property value to mature.
If the rate of maturity is less than the rate of this inflation, then you are no longer creating an investment, you are creating debt. If a property investment group, a private bank, or state bank has over invested too heavily in developing the real estate market… there’s a pretty good chance that it’s going to have a hard time remaining in solvency.
This is an example of why a lot of people accuse the CCP of giving up on communism after the Deng reforms. Satiating the needs of the market too often conflicts with the needs of the people.
Theoretically in a planned economy you would be correct. There’s no motivation too build too many homes, nor is there is there a scarcity of homes. Both scenario are conditions of a capitalist market reacting to the perceived needs of the consumer or the market.
Real estate speculators make too many buildings, property values fall, people can buy homes, and everyone wins. Right? Oh, except for real estate speculators, but who cares about them anyway.
In a planned economy, it wouldn’t be unexpected to over-build. In fact, it perfectly makes sense, same as we would over produce a small surplus of anything. Housing isn’t ten I to create, and so having reserves ready for use when they’re needed in the future is a good thing. It may be bad from capitalism perspective, because you aren’t getting a great return on the investment yet. But from a planned economy perspective it’s good.
In a planned economy, it wouldn’t be unexpected to over-build. In fact
I wouldn’t call that over building though, and that wouldn’t explain hundreds of millions of extra homes. Building that aren’t being used begin to break down quite rapidly.
The problem with China’s real estate market is that it’s entirely built on false promises and leveraged debt.
The government provides cheap loans to citizens to buy homes they will never live. All in an effort to drive the country’s GDP… but eventually you will either:
Run out of capital to fuel this construction
Rebase the value of these paper homes and the economy collapses on a scale 10x that of the 2008 housing crisis
This article has nothing to do with unhoused people, nor an overvalued housing market pushing out middle class buyers. The economics of the Chinese market are completely dissimilar from the western (US particularly) markets.
It’s entirely about how the Chinese government has an unsustainable market segment dedicated to building things that people don’t want or need… other than to have wealth on paper.
The root cause that all comments here in Lemmy miss is the Chinese approach to tax funding, which is entirely built on cities and provinces being expected to generate tax income through land sales to property developers, and then public officials competency and rise inside the party being measured by the size of that tax income generated trough land sale.
China needs to adopt a western style of income and consumption taxation if they don’t have one but I understand that internal enforcements is very lax (to prevent popular protests) and corruption (that ends up siphoning off any revenue raised through taxes).
In short, that housing stock will remain unused and, without maintenance and continued use, will only deteriorate over time, leaving cities with a terrible burdensome legacy
The CCP basically “encouraged” those with capital to park it in these massive make-work projects knowing full well that any real demand-based natural economic equilibrium wouldn’t support that housing inventory. They pumped up their economic numbers using tools like this, but like all centrally managed economies they are running out of levers to pull. It’s going to be ugly when this stuff all comes to a head.
How? A 65 million unit surplus is more or less in line with other countries: 65/1400 = 5%. At an average family household size of 3, that gives an aggregate household vacancy rate of (up to) 15% (ignoring, of course, that not everyone who owns a home has a family). This also ignores how things like second homes, vacation homes, and excess rural housing stock is counted (given that, y’know, China has had a massive rural-to-urban migration over the past few decades).
It certainly isn’t capitalist to have such an insane gap between offer and supply. If lack of offer is a problem, the issues with such enormous oversupply are even greater. Just wasteful. Damaging to the environment. And introduces a lot of economic woes.
No, that’s an effect of collusion and cartelization of the economy. It’s because you have very few actors supplying the product and the barriers of creating a similar product are too high, so new competitors cannot access the market. Then the current suppliers can sit on the product and wait for it to be at the right price, as long as it doesn’t go to waste.
As you can see, all of this screens about real estate:
Cartelization/collusion: The aren’t that many companies that have properties on sale
High cost to enter: Building is pricey, and it depends on the location of the property more than anything. So a building in one neighborhood is not a direct replacement of a building in another neighborhood.
Real estate does not go to waste. Unless bad luck or poor choices, your building should work fine for a couple of generations. And worst case scenario, the land already has a price.
This is the time when governments should intervene and come up with a proposal to solve the cartelization.
Yes and no. Capitalism without regulations may bring this kind of issues. But capitalism with regulations shouldn’t. The issue is that the required regulations are not being applied or do not exist.
We should not blame or put the weight of the issue in capitalism, when we clearly know we don’t live in a perfect capitalistic world, and very few markets are like that. The issue is with politicians.
Capitalism destroys its own regulations because politicians are for sale! You’re acting like politics and markets are different, but they’re interconnected at their very core.
Don’t blame capitalism for something that’s at the core of any political system: Greed destroys it. Greed and humans are intertwined. It’s not capitalism’s fault. The same happened across history even when and where capitalism didn’t exist: the Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet block and even in China now. Greedy people that can be bought will exist everywhere. The wish for power is not inherent of capitalism, is inherent of human nature. Failing to see that will lead to the same issue over and over again, in democratic or autocratic regimes.
The problem with capitalism and feudalism and the ancient empires before them is they are unequal and undemocratuc. The common thread through all of them is a large amount of power concentrated into very few hands, leading to class conflict between haves and havenots. Capitalism isn’t unique in that respect, it’s just the most advanced form.
I don’t hate the human race. But I cannot stop pointing to our flaws. Not understanding our flaws, will lead to keep having them and the problems they carry.
On the other hand, what you are saying will be valid in any system. How do you propose to have a completely egalitarian society? It’s nearly impossible, there will always be people wanting more than they have and won’t care about the consequences of it.
As long as there are haves and havenots then there will be class conflict.
Abolish private property so no one can be a ‘have’ and redistribute the wealth so there are no longer people who are ‘havenots.’ WIthout the accumulation of wealth and power the class distinctions evaporate into air and we could abolish the State itself, because the State only exists as a tool for one class to oppress the other.
See? That’s where I get confused and I end up with the “that can’t happen” attitude in my head.
If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let’s imagine that it’s seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn’t that be thievery in the eyes of those who don’t want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don’t it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a “haver” against all of those “havenotters” that gave their property for nothing but good will.
And then there’s the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of “property”? And then it’s the issue of how do you measure that “property”? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It’s not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.
Finally, who does that? We? And who is “we”? Who organises “we”? How is “we” not anarchist? And if it’s anarchist, how do we ensure it’s just?
If you abolish private property, then who has that property?
Everyone has it, referred to as “the commons”
Let’s imagine that it’s seized, by whom? How?
The State, which will still be necessary during this transitional period. It will use the power invested in it by the democratic process (because havenots vastly outnumber the haves) to take and redistribute the wealth. This will likely not be a peaceful process, but the creation of private property was not peaceful either!
And why wouldn’t that be thievery in the eyes of those who don’t want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don’t it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a “haver” against all of those “havenotters” that gave their property for nothing but good will.
Property is theft.
The very existence of private land is based solely on violent theft from the commons. All land was stolen by armies and gifted to nobles and aristocrats and settlers and companies. The history of land acquisition is bloody all across the world.
Profit, too, is theft. Profit is the surplus value created by labor and unequal exchange through unfair trade and State-backed violence i.e. the market. Then those profits are used to buy politicians to steal even more, leading to endless wealth accumulation and evergrowing inequality.
And then there’s the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of “property”?
Democratic decision making works here; we all own it together and we decide how it is used/distributed.
And then it’s the issue of how do you measure that “property”? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It’s not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.
Is it so unthinkable that we could democratically determine the value of a house based on location, quality, size, popularity, etc.? Why must this be done by a market? And before you say that the market is democratic, remember that democracy is “1 person, 1 vote” but the market gives the haves more votes than the havenots.
Finally, who does that? We? And who is “we”? Who organises “we”? How is “we” not anarchist? And if it’s anarchist, how do we ensure it’s just?
These are strategic questions. I don’t think anarchism can achieve this because the State is necessary for the havenots to seize wealth and property and power from the haves. I worry that the State will need to be dealt with and won’t just ‘whither away’ on its own, as posited by Marxists. Some kind of synthesis between the two? I don’t know!
Ultimately, this is all just theory crafting divorced from real world struggle. Nothing you or I say on the internet really matters. We have to go out into the real world and test ideas against material reality, where things are ugly and messy
The world is already ugly and messy, though, so I think it’s worth it.
“Planned by the libs”, as if the “libs” were a single entity that have a homogeneous plan. Let’s stop giving entity to stuff that never existed and realise that there is a structural problem that occurred because of bad management of our economy and policies. Because we had mediocre actors and in some cases actors with bad faith.
We have a solution, it is called anti trust legislation. We need to break up all of these too large to fail organizations. It’s ridiculous that we have only a handful of major players in soo many markets.
Yeah, and what happened to that legislation? Businesses bought the right politicians and defanged everything that inhibited their profits. Businesses have their thumbs on the scale making sure the FTC doesn’t have the right people to be a threat.
Oversupply of life saving goods is a good thing. Only under capitalism is it bad, which is why we have so many preventable deaths and deaths of poverty. Overbuilding housing and making it available to everyone in anticipation of localized population booms or migrations is exactly what the government should be doing.
I mean, maybe a bit of a buffer, but China was pretty much just building them endlessly. A lot of people were evicted and wetlands filled for these (bad, cut-corner) apartment buildings to go up and then sit totally empty.
Just no. It’s something libs seemingly can’t understand : you need surplus to face problems and adapt to a changing situation or a crisis without people dying. Problem is that libs care more about money than people, so they seek an equilibrium where supply is right below demand so the capitalists can exploit the people.
It is a bad thing! How are investors holding on to dozens of empty units at ridiculous prices supposed to get a return on investment if the market’s oversaturated with living spaces?
Looks like we’re gonna have to start tearing them down to reduce supply.
It’s a problem for people who indebted themselves to buy those homes with a valuation based on scarcity. Also a problem for the real estate Chinese companies, sector which represents a quarter of Chinese economy.
Sounds to me like China is trying to solve both of those problems by lowering property scarcity - if this stays controlled it will make properties cheaper so people don’t need to acquire as much debt and it will shrink the real estate sector. Since this housing is built through centralized control and not a market, it should be totally under control.
Obviously something unexpected could happen that blindsides the Party, but it looks like politics is in command and everything is proceeding as expected.
Obviously something unexpected could happen that blindsides the Party, but it looks like politics is in command and everything is proceeding as expected.
I take it you didn’t read the article.
A former Chinese government official said the country’s entire population of 1.4 billion wouldn’t be enough to fill all of its empty houses, Reuters reported, citing a video from the state news agency China News Service. **China’s real-estate struggles rose to prominence in 2021, when industry giant Evergrande became the most indebted company in the world and defaulted.**At the time, there were at least 65 million vacant properties in the country, which would have been enough to house the entire population of France, Insider previously reported.
To me, this seems wasteful. I’m not very familiar with the Chinese real estate market however.
At the time, there were at least 65 million vacant properties in the country, which would have been enough to house the entire population of France, Insider previously reported.
That doesn’t actually mean there are 65 million surplus properties. A vacant house isn’t an unnecessary house. Children move out all the time, families sometimes break up, Chinese citizens currently living overseas or in Europe return home, etc.
I bet there’s actually math for this - I wonder if anyone has calculated the optimal amount of vacancies?
That doesn’t actually mean there are 65 million surplus properties. A vacant house isn’t an unnecessary house.
That is a very good point. I still find it hard to believe that they are making the best use of labor and materials with situations like this:
Ordos, near the border with Mongolia, was meant to hold over 1 million people and become a cultural and economic hub. But by 2016, its population was only around 100,000, and it has been described as “the largest ghost town in the world.”
Sure. The point I was trying to make is that society might be better served by allocating resources to building hospitals or schools or something the community needs instead of housing that the community does not necessarily need because there is already a surplus of housing.
China isn’t really limited by construction resources. There’s a heavier constraint in terms of hospital staff and teachers than there is on construction resources.
Sometimes, you misspeculate. Some developers lost a whole fuck ton of money on the project, but that’s more than made up for if you can turn a profit on projects near big cities (which demand is still sky high for).
Add comment