Although the New Deal has just been introduced, it is still some time before it is officially implemented. Many people on the internet have been gearing up and plan to do some small roadside business in the future to alleviate the economic embarrassment under the epidemic.
Despite this, there has never been a lack of concern about the operation of open-air stalls. It seems that the bigger the city, the lower the tolerance for vendors. This is not only because a large number of mobile vendors gather, which may cause traffic jams, environmental degradation, food safety and other problems, as if "going back to ten years ago overnight", but also because they are worried that vendors from all over the world are incompatible with the image of a big city and will lead to mismatch of resources-if everyone goes to set up stalls, who will spend so much money to buy stores and pay rent? Will the city fall into a low-quality development cycle?
Can a modern metropolis smell of cities and fireworks?
In foreign countries, this is no longer a problem. In big cities like new york, London and Paris, there are many street vendors and markets. Instead of pulling back to the city, they have become a beautiful and unique landscape, increasing the charm of the city. Don't worry that night markets and stalls will rob the businesses around them, because the goods they sell are different, corresponding to different consumer classes and preferences, and will not constitute direct competition. On the contrary, stalls will bring a steady stream of people to shops, especially to activate the night economy. Large shopping malls close on time at night. In the past, consumers had few choices and went home directly after work. If street stalls are liberalized, the night market will prosper, the consumption opportunities will increase, the potential consumer demand will be activated, and shops will also benefit.
All this proves that as long as it is properly managed, roadside stalls and city appearance do not conflict with the economic orientation of metropolis. It's just that in the past, the city was used to traffic jams. In order to pursue the glamour of the surface, blindly suppressing hawkers and occupying the road to kill them with a stick not only damages the vitality and vitality of the city, but also makes many people lose the opportunity to make a living in big cities. And no matter how humble an individual is, he has the right to live. Stalling may not make much money, but it's better than sitting at home and eating nothing, and it's better than no hope.
In the current economic difficulties, any measures that can promote employment and protect people's livelihood are worth trying, especially believing in the power of the market and the creativity of the people. If the so-called city appearance, sanitation and city image are allowed to expand, ignoring their plight of survival may lead to a greater crisis.
Although spreading the economy helps to restore social flexibility under the epidemic situation, people also hope that it is not an expedient measure to tide over the difficulties, not just a temporary need. Whether there is an epidemic or not, there will be unemployed people and people with financial difficulties in the city. Setting up a stall can enable them to live a dignified life. Banning setting up a stall across the board is equivalent to cutting off the opportunity for the bottom to strive for survival. This time, Shanghai clearly proposed to change the simplistic style that was banned in the past and seek a balance between city appearance management and people's livelihood needs. This makes people see some hope that mobile hawkers can also become a fixed part of the landscape of big cities, instead of being chased by urban management or so-called city vandals.