The CCP dug its own grave here like many other things. It monopolized land and dictates/manipulates prices, hijacked the people and economy using the housing market, in turn it also assumed the responsibility.
Chinese are protesting and vandalizing when prices fall.
If I'm in China, and my money for escaping from China is in Vancouver real estate, and Vancouver real estate falls, then if I ever decide to escape China, I may have to work rather than be independently wealthy. That's not as big a deal as not being able to take care of my parents. And my anger is directed at Canada, not China, so it's less socially explosive. (Less explosive even to Canada - it wasn't their job to make it easy for me to escape from China.)
Or so it seems to me, a non-Chinese (and even non-Canadian)...
Right now, there is a working-people boom globally, as most of the post-1950 baby boom is in their working years, national barriers to trade have fallen down, and the huge post-1985 population boom is entering the workforce. A lot of people are working, and there are relatively few old people to take care of. This has led to a global savings glut - people are financially saving some of their earnings to take care of their eventual old age.
This situation will not last forever - the global baby boomers will enter retirement, life expectancy is increasing, and the generation after Millenials (and their global equivalents) is tiny, with fertility falling off a cliff even in developing nations. That means fewer working people supporting more retirees. Technology has been stubbornly ineffective at increasing elder-care productivity, even as it's been very effective at increasing life expectancy. No financial engineering in the world can paper that over - regardless of how many dollars are injected into the economy, how much people have in their 401k, how much is in their bank account, and how many homes they own, there are still only a set number of people available to care for elders. Additional savings just means the price of elder-care will rise to soak up all the savings, and the price of assets will fall as people rush to sell them to afford the increasing price of elder-care.
The result is potentially explosive. People who assumed they have enough set aside for a comfortable retirement will find that a.) a "comfortable retirement" becomes increasingly more expensive and b.) the value of those assets is suddenly falling. There will be widespread calls for the government to fix things, but there's nothing within the government's power to fix: it still takes a certain amount of labor to help your grandparents out of bed, change their bedpans, bathe them, measure their medications, etc. So the chance of social unrest becomes dramatically higher, which means that maybe that escape plan of moving to Vancouver is pretty important. That just exports the problem, though, and destabilizes other countries.
Does this mean kids born today will have better jobs, higher pay, cheaper real estate. This seems like a good thing.
Only semi-accepted economics, but a boiled down version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0
In short, if consumption falls, the economy can't help but fall with it. Which is what's commonly called a demographic time bomb. Especially in the US, where our social security systems are funded out of current workers, not by savings.
The only way to escape the trap (hypothetically) would be to invest heavily enough in capital expenses / automation during booming demographic times, implement a consumption-driving basic income funded by that boom, then throw up substantial barriers to prevent that money from trickling out to the rest of the world's economy (as without barriers you'd just be supporting foreign economies). This would look VERY different from business-as-usual as it's a 180 against free trade.
1.3 billion people will produce a lot of winners, and they desperately want to keep their wealth safe somewhere like all the party officials do, that place won't be China.
Shanghai's average salary last year is around 11.5K usd, while an average 80m²/861sq.ft condo there sells for 558K usd(bare concrete, pay additional cost to do plumbing, wiring, flooring and furnishing), and this will be one at a very undeveloped part far far far from downtown in a city of 2,448 mi².
I saw a documentary that said most of the condos are owned by collections of families, is that right? And they buy third and fourth homes too. They all sit empty. Fueled buy municipal loans.
What will happen to the families who own all those condos that become worthless?