Prompt: 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?

At present, several countries have a serious social problem about a lack of residence in towns, and they believe only the administration can improve it. As for this statement, I totally agree with it because the government can operate the policy to expand jobs to rural areas, and They can develop countrysides to be more convenient to live in. Ċ Firstly, one of the reasons why I agree is the administration can operate the policy to extend employment outside the cities. Japanese's government, for example, is able to stop a huge number of people to move to the cities. Because they reduce the tax imposed on the companies which are relocated in the rural areas. Therefore, many factors move out to the countrysides. From this result, the young generation has jobs in their hometown. Moreover, they do not need to move into the capital city. It can decrease the issue of housing shortages. Ċ Secondly, to reduce the lack of homes, the government can solve this trouble by increasing facilities for more convenience in the countrysides. Based on my country, a large number of people relocate to the capital city which is Bangkok because they require ease of transport. The government solve this issue by increasing public transportations such as buses, local taxies, subway and so on. From this result, people who desire to move into Bangkok change their minds so, a lack of housing in the city is lesser than before. Ċ In conclusion, the trouble of home shortages in the downtown can be improved by only the government. In my opinion, I absolutely agree with it because they can operate the policy to extend the employment to rural areas, and they can develop outside the cities to be more convenient.