Would it not work if they did what Henry Ford was doing. Price them so the workers can buy them? That way the money stays in your pockets while the workers enjoy a better life? Win-Win.
The reason he could do this was because of the productivity gains incurred by assembly line techniques. Incidentally, the assembly line techniques also reduced the prices of automobiles to the point where an overpaid worker could afford them.
Possibly the most overlooked aspect of what Ford did is the standardization of the 40 hour work week so that his employees would have the free time necessary to make an automobile make sense.
64 million surplus homes in China could be filled in a heartbeat. China is not America where everyone for the most part already has a pretty decent home. The current US estimates are similar per capita, but the issue is that US doesn't have a massive supply of peasant farmers who would like much better houses in the city.
China has started to reach the point where it is fueling the demand for it's own goods similar to what happened to the US in the 20s and continued in the 50s and 60s as a generation moved from the farm to the city. In the US the fuel was lend/lease and marshall aid, for China it's trinkets for Wal-Mart.
At 100,000 USD a pop the surplus represents 6.4 trillion dollars, if you assume the units are overvalued similar to USD real estate meaning they have a 3.2 trillion dollar bubble. A 3.2 trillion dollar bubble is similar to the costs of the US bubble plus a war in Iraq and Afganistan. The only difference is the Chinese have peasants who will ostensibly drastically increase their economic output and the fact that building modest housing probably has a better ROI than war.
This is mathematically impossible.
Suppose your workers purchase everything they own from a company store with an X% profit margin. If you pay your employees $Y, the actual cost to you is $Y(1-X). Increasing employee pay (holding all else constant) always increases your costs.