I would argue that statement here is misleading.
Popular Chinese movies acknowledge high price of real estate in large cities. All theses movies are available in US, have subtitles in English and can be accessed using popular streaming services.
Examples:
Some of dialogue involving parents, if i recall right:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_O2O_(TV_series)
In the following show lower income aerospace engineer and high income actress. They directly state that he could not afford small apartment if not for money grant for being the best:
Tier 2 and even tier 3 cities in China seem pretty liveable from the vlogs I have seen. Cities having high costs/rents is a problem but it’s not a problem as bad as in, say, India where the urban-rural disparity is much more stark.
But they’re based in it. Especially dramas or soap operas which work because people relate to the characters or at least realize that what they’re going through can happen in the world. A silly example: a Cuban wouldn’t make Breaking Bad because why would the protagonist need to find cash for his treatment or kids, when healthcare and education are free?
So while we can’t tell how widespread the issues in those dramas are, it’s valid to say that they do appear in China (or appeared when they were created).
Because of the low rent and easy access to housing in New York City, maybe I should move there with my $40,000/year self-employed job.
The ‘for living’ doesn’t mean free, means affordable for the average person/family living there.
But yes, dense city centres all over the world have about the same problem (since ancient times, up until railways & commuting, when for a bit poor/working class people lived outside the city).
Even in sci-fi movies the top few hundred floors are nice, all the other floors never get daylight or even a sense of where the sun is. Especially if there are roads/allies/“streets” between floors on various levels.
If this is true, why are the Chinese buying real estate all over the globe? Something’s not adding up here.
It’s not the Chinese buying real estate in the west, it’s Chinese capitalists. A lot of Hong Kong bourgeois for example have been buying property in and in many cases have moved to the west since 1997, since they’re terrified of losing their extortionate privilege of property ownership under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Working class Chinese people, while on average wealthier than their western working class counterparts, do not have the capital nor the material interest to buy real estate in the west, whether for speculation or to move their ill gotten gains out of China.
Capitalists interpret the health of an economy by how much CSAM they can buy within it.
Westoid economists were screaming about how China’s real estate market is overheated and will crash, and now that the CPC has done something about it, they’re screaming about how the real estate market isn’t growing as fast so China is doomed.
It is not just “overproduction”. It is “overproduction” with a “stagnating economy” during an “economic downturn”. Only China is capable of collapsing in multiple contradictory ways at the same time like this.
This is also why they think One Child was a failure: a Western economy that size would need 1.8 billion talking heads by 2040 just to keep the spin going. CNBC headquarters alone would be the size of Manitoba and on the verge of gravitational collapse due to the flesh packed within.
Reminds me of this, as anti-communist rhetoric often does:
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.” ― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
Investing in production instead of property portfolios like FOOLS
Imagine having a productive economy, real CHADS like the US or THE FREE WEST have real strong economies predicated on scamming/ponzi-ing the other through markets finance and the third sector, and no such outdated economical bases like industry or infrastructure
