Even China’s population of 1.4 billion would not be enough to fill all the empty apartments littered across the country, a former official said on Saturday, in a rare public critique of the country’s crisis-hit property market.

China’s property sector, once the pillar of the economy, has slumped since 2021 when real estate giant China Evergrande Group (3333.HK) defaulted on its debt obligations following a clampdown on new borrowing.

Big-name developers such as Country Garden Holdings (2007.HK) continue to teeter close to default even to this day, keeping home-buyer sentiment depressed.

As of the end of August, the combined floor area of unsold homes stood at 648 million square metres (7 billion square feet), the latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) show.

That would be equal to 7.2 million homes, according to Reuters calculations, based on the average home size of 90 square metres.

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The world is really lucky that China’s not doing that great at the moment. Not so long ago, China was winning the propaganda war internationally.

    You don’t want authoritarianism to win the argument by out-performing democracies.

    • JasSmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. I don’t think we had or have anything to fear. The Chinese educational system is built around obedience, cultural homogeneity, and rote learning. Sure, there are fewer protests, and there is less crime, but also a SEVERE lack of innovation. I can count on one hand the number of innovations China has exported to the world in the last decade. Everything they build of note is based on stolen IP and figurative and literal slave labour. The world is finally clamping down on the former, and China’s social progression to a service-based economy is putting an end to the latter. Their comparative competitive advantages are eroding by the day.

    • sndmn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suspect a major reason for Putin’s most recent crimes was to prevent his people learning how much their neighbours are prospering.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why doesn’t China count as a democracy? People vote and the votes get counted and decide who runs things.

      • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alright I’ll bite, what makes the world’s declared democracies actually undemocratic in your mind?

        • Serdan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Billionaires directly or indirectly buying elections, politicians, drafting policies, funding propaganda, regulatory capture, etc.

          • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The democratic world doesn’t start and end with America

            • Serdan@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I live in Denmark. All liberal democracies are subject to the whims of billionaires.

              Edit: oh wait, you’re Canadian. That’s fucking hilarious.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love how you’re getting downvoted, likely by people who feel a sense of enlightenment in that they can identify Chinese propaganda that has been pointed out to them as such but have no clue about propaganda originating from their own country or from a country theirs is allied with.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I find it interesting that everyone is calling this bad management when it’s indicating one thing above all:

    Productivity has well exceeded the requirements of the population.

    People simply don’t need to work that hard anymore, but all industrialized societies, even would-be socialists, simply can’t stand the idea of letting the working class have leisure time.

    • somethingsnappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      UBI and robust social safety nets should have started with the industrial revolution. Every time a machine, computer, or now robots, UBI should have increased and been given to more people.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tax the automation!! Have companies pay employee taxes for self scanners and all automation. Let the workers live, let the machines work.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I look at my own country of Portugal with a massive realestate prices bubble were more than half the youths only leave their parent’s home after they’re 30, more than 50% of recent graduates emigrating when they get their degrees and schools in certain areas lacking teachers because houses there are too expensive for a teacher salary, and think that maybe what China has there is actually good thing, not a bad thing.

      Yeah, sure, “investors” are suffering, but why should the other 99% of people care?!

    • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe if they actually built these things up to code it would take longer to build them in the first place. These things tend to collapse.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If one crumbles, they can just use the one next door. They have a surplus! /s

    • bookmeat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That may have been true if this resulted from the operation of a non corrupt free market, but this is instead China.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Housing does not have the conditions to be a Free Market because any one piece of land has a single owner who has the monoply of deciding what’s done with it.

        Sure, you can make as many houses you want … in places were nobody wants to live because there are no jobs there … but in practice the housing market is restricted by the ownership of land in those places were people do want to live in (have to live in, even, because the jobs are there), which means the supply of the most essential “raw material” for realestate - the actual land to build the housing in, situated were people need a place to live in - is heavilly restriced.

        (In fact if you look at China’s problem, with all the “ghost cities” made by the now near bankrupt building companies, they’re exactly because they tried to work around that huge market barrier to entry by building cities in the middle of nowhere, were land was cheap and easilly available, on the expectation that both people and jobs would come there, and that didn’t work)

        Free Markets can only happen in markets were new supply can easilly come online in response to things like price increases or lowered quality by established market players, and that’s markets for things like soap or teddy bears, not things were supply growth is heavilly restricted by land ownership or other similar high market barriers to entry.

        Free Market Theory would only ever be applicable in markets with no or very low barriers to entry and only if market actors were rational, and Economists of the Behaviour Economics domain have proven that humans aren’t rational economic actors, not even close: that pseudo-economics bollocks you’re parroting is not only wholly unapplicable to the housing market (which has nowhere the low barriers to entry needed for there to de facto be freedom for market actors) but has even been disproven more than 2 decades ago (funilly enough by a guy who recently got a Nobel Prize in Economics, though for different work) when it was shown experimentally and in many different ways that homo economicus is not at all a good model for human economic behaviour.

  • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Considering China’s population shrank by nearly 1 million last year and it predicted to drop by ~700 million by 2100.

    This is not going to get better.

  • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    When you make the only safe place for money real estate, then your corrupt Politicians make that only safe for the wealthy and connected, you end up with a lot of empty useless real estate.

  • cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nah. China’s urbanization rate is currently 65%. South Korea for comparison has 82% urbanization rate. So the Chinese have plenty more (say, a hundred million or so more) homes to build. The current difficulties are more to do with (i) loss of consumer confidence caused by the leadership’s bad economic management, and (ii) the deliberate restriction of credit to developers because of the government’s concerns about debt.

    This analysis reminds me of the hoo-hah about China’s “ghost cities” circa 2010. Those ghost cities ended up being filled up.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are still vast ghost cities in that country, so no they don’t actually all fill up

      • cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Enough of them filled up that even the press outlets that pushed the ghost cities narrative most aggressively, like Bloomberg, have run follow-up stories acknowledging it.

        Yes, some developments worked out and others didn’t, but building out housing in advance of increasing urbanization is a good thing, not a bad thing. It’s how you avoid housing unaffordability in urban centers, or worse, the rise of slums.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Building housing 15 or 20 years ahead of time isn’t a good thing. When people move in, the places are already old. Apartment buildings deteriorate over time even with no one living in them. It’s clearly wasteful to build them that early and there’s definitely a huge property bubble in China.

          • cyd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not 15 or 20 years ahead of time, though. The “ghost cities” came alive within only a few years; for example, this page points to Zhengdong New District, which was singled out as a ghost city by 60 Minutes in 2013. It had a population of 5 million seven years later. For district development (as opposed to constructing a single building), seven years is nothing.

            Coming back to their current property crisis: let’s assume the article is correct that there’s an excess of 7 million homes. We can plug this into China’s current urbanization rate, and suppose China will get to South Korea’s urbanization rate in 20 years (that’s roughly how far they’re behind SK, by GDP per capita). At one home for every 3.5 people, they need 3.4 million homes per year on average. So they have overshot by about 2 years, which is hardly going to make buildings crumble.

      • Sl00k@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ghost cities are largely American propaganda and most have filled out to well urbanized areas. You can read quite a bit about it on the wiki

  • Ben Matthews@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is important, not least because making the cement and steel for these surplus apartments and associated road infrastructure makes an enormous contribution to global CO2 emissions. Look at how the emissions took off after 2005. So the sooner the bubble bursts, the better for the climate.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    BEIJING, Sept 23 (Reuters) - Even China’s population of 1.4 billion would not be enough to fill all the empty apartments littered across the country, a former official said on Saturday, in a rare public critique of the country’s crisis-hit property market.

    Big-name developers such as Country Garden Holdings (2007.HK) continue to teeter close to default even to this day, keeping home-buyer sentiment depressed.

    As of the end of August, the combined floor area of unsold homes stood at 648 million square metres (7 billion square feet), the latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) show.

    That does not count the numerous residential projects that have already been sold but not yet completed due to cash-flow problems, or the multiple homes purchased by speculators in the last market upturn in 2016 that remain vacant, which together make up the bulk of unused space, experts estimate.

    “That estimate might be a bit much, but 1.4 billion people probably can’t fill them,” He said at a forum in the southern Chinese city Dongguan, according to a video released by the official media China News Service.

    His negative view of the economically significant sector at a public forum stands in sharp contrast to the official narrative that the Chinese economy is “resilient”.


    The original article contains 346 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 39%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not for them. It’s so they can buy them and charge exorbitant rents to the next generation looking for a place to call their own, but can’t afford one of their own.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And China’s population is projected to fall under 1 billion again over the next decades, making this a shit show circus. So many apartments bought as an investment will never see any occupancy and will likely just be abandoned. They got entire empty ghost towns already

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    if only their regime weren’t so repressive, homeless americans would be flocking there for a place to live.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m guessing most of those dwellings are in places that don’t have any employment options.

      • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        presumably someone is doing upkeep on these buildings, and presumably those someones have needs for other folks to fill

        presumably once more folks move there, they will have even more needs for folks to fill

        not to mention remote work and all that

      • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        perhaps not, but hey, if a job around here won’t make it possible for you to afford four walls and a roof, then the difference it purely academic.

        People like to create things, to do something productive. it’s why NEETs are notoriously miserable people who hate themselves. humans crave to DO something or it torments us to the brink of suicide - and sometimes past it. If only these folks had a place to live and weren’t brutalized by the authorities for daring to attempt to do so, they’ll create productive activities.

        Part of the problem of poverty here, also, is that it’s sometimes literally fucking illegal to carry out productive labor activities unless you’re on land that you own or land that is owned by a designated employer. Try growing produce in a vacant lot and you’ll get arrested for trespassing and “vandalism”, and possibly sued by whatever ghoulish real estate holdings firm is hoarding the land.

        With an apartment and nothing else, you’ll have a place to go back to while seeking employment OR a place to stage activities with other people. just because I personally don’t have 100% of the answers or the clairvoyant foreknowledge of what someone might be able to do with the resource of just having a space to call their own doesn’t mean that someone else won’t come up with something i’d have never dreamed of. I think it’s not unreasonable to have a little faith in human creativity.