There are severe social consequences to housing shortages in cities and only the government can solve these problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Today, there are many countries where rampant housing shortages are commonplace. In

this

essay, I argue that

this

results in a host of societal issues, and that the

government

should try and alleviate

this

problem.

Firstly

, I argue that housing shortages result in lower economic growth.

People

who do not have homes are more likely to suffer from the anxiety of having to pay monthly rent,

while

homeless

people

would

also

be unable to get jobs.

This

is because for the former group, owning a house as a way of retiring is out of the question,

while

for the latter, most companies do not hire

people

who do not have a house.

As a result

, these

people

might turn to crime or other antisocial activities in order to survive.

Hence

, there are large sections of society that can be utilised

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

but are denied opportunities

due to

the housing crisis.

Thus

I argue that the

government

should step in and solve the problem.

Although

people

might hold that

this

should be done by the private sector, I contend

conversely

that

this

would simply lead to individuals buying up houses and driving up housing shortages again.

Therefore

, the

government

should use taxpayer money to provide good and affordable housing. An example where

this

is already done is in Austria and Singapore, where citizens are virtually guaranteed a house by the

government

, with those who have money paying for private accommodation if they want.

To conclude

, I believe that there are many social costs to a lack of housing, and the

government

rather than corporate entities should step in. If authorities take action to plough ahead with

this

problem, citizens will definitely have many opportunities to raise their living standards.