If you are a real estate agent, what do you think of "poor people, housing problems, what should I do?"

Not long ago, a real estate agent claimed that he "only built houses for the rich". This remark immediately attracted a condemnation. This is an ugly statement, but if you think about it carefully, building houses for social welfare or public welfare purposes is actually the responsibility of the government, which is obviously not something that private businessmen can ask them to do. There may be businessmen building houses for charity, but for most real estate developers, building houses is for profit. Building a house for the rich or the poor is not a problem. Even building a house for the poor will generally make money, and it is unlikely to be charity for the poor. It's probably not good to make money from the rich or the poor. At present, the main complaints of some real estate developers (not the real estate industry) in society are low commercial reputation and many fraud traps. What is more serious is collusion between officials and businessmen, forced demolition, enclosure to make money, encroachment on civil rights, land and loan cycle, and empty gloves and white wolves. This is why the public has long suspected that the super-rich in China are highly concentrated in the field of "real estate-finance". When these problems are solved, the basic requirements of society for them will be met.

What people really need to think about is the phrase "building a house only for the rich": can building a house only for the rich be profitable? Why? Is government supervision responsible in this respect? Why do the so-called "affordable housing" preferential policies invest a lot in 100 square meter or even larger high-grade housing? Although the government still has the right to "requisition" farmers' land without bargaining, it has changed the policy of "the highest bidder wins" for real estate developers. What has the expanded fiscal differential income done? Whether and by what means to solve the housing problem of the poor? If this is not the case, then the "high land price-high housing price" caused by bidding makes it more difficult for the poor to buy a house. What can real estate developers do if they don't "build houses for the rich" when the needs of the poor are compressed? If the market cannot solve the housing problem of the poor (it should be said that it is very possible from the international situation), how should the government assume its own responsibilities?

As far as purely logical possibility and international practice are concerned, the housing situation of the lower class citizens in the process of urbanization generally has the following situations:

Poor people can't afford commercial housing, and the government can't provide welfare housing, so they are allowed to "build privately" and don't give welfare freedom. As a result, "Mumbai-style" slums have emerged. This is the general situation in big cities of third world countries.

The government provides housing benefits, such as low-rent housing. This is what many market economy countries will do after they have a little economic strength. Hong Kong and Singapore are familiar examples. This is true even in the most developed countries, such as the United States. Like Harlem in new york and robert taylor in Chicago, these communities, which are often called slums, are actually very different from Mumbai-style slums. They are actually planned low-rent houses, and the architectural landscape and supporting facilities should be said to be good, but the social order and public security are poor, and they also have the reputation of slums.

It is still a commercial house, but it helps the poor to buy it through government intervention. Such as giving preferential or free land, planning low-standard residential areas to reduce housing prices, providing preferential loans, and encouraging support for the second-hand housing market. Some "welfare countries" in northern Europe also adopted this method in the early days.

With the active support of the government, or after gaining the recognition of the government through struggle, the poor people unite to set up housing cooperatives and raise funds to build their own houses. Jewish immigrant towns in Israel are typical examples of government support for this policy. The "protest communities" in some big cities in Latin America, such as the "Bosco Cooperative Community" in Quito, Ecuador, visited by the author, are typical examples. However, this method requires special cohesion and is difficult to imitate.

Finally, the freedom of migration is abolished, access restrictions are set, and the city is listed as the residence of people with certain privileged status. Poor people without this status are not allowed to enter, and those who enter are punished and expelled. We used to do this, and now it is still the case in a few countries such as North Korea.

After moving towards a market economy, we have gradually bid farewell to the latter option. But what's the choice? There are many discussions and experiments, but the overall consideration seems to be still uncertain.

Now the poor can't "build privately" and the government can't provide low-rent housing. Low-standard housing is unsightly, inconvenient to "generate income" and not advocated. Even the second-hand housing market is in a dead state because of tax, formalities and other policy obstacles. In this case, where do you want the poor to live? Should this responsibility "find the market" or "find the mayor"?

In fact, the housing problem is a combination of commodity trading and social security. For ordinary houses and high-grade houses, a market-oriented balance between supply and demand can be implemented, but for the poor and weak groups, even in developed countries like the United States and a "capitalist" society that is said to be a typical free market system rather than a "welfare state", it is impossible to push their housing problems to the market. For the public sector in China, we should confine our power to areas suitable for marketization and not "compete with the people for profits"; And to fulfill the responsibility in the field of public services, don't shirk it to the "market", both of which depend on reform. Of course, we can't repeat the "basically unsuccessful" reforms. This requires us to speed up the process of limiting power and accountability, promote the correspondence between power and responsibility from two aspects, and build a public power-public service department with modern political civilization required by a harmonious society.

I hope it is useful to you, and hope to adopt it!