I'm not a native English speaker but, I hear a lot of native English speaker using ( There's ) with plural like:
There's a million things I haven't done.
There's hungry people out there.
Shouldn't it be There are million things and There are hungry people out there because both people and million things are plural?
Is this a common mistake native speakers do or does it just work that way?
Contracting there are to there're | WordReference Forums
grammatical number - Using "there're" to abbreviate "there are" - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange
Is this ok to use? I know it's a contraction (?) of there + are but it just looks and sounds so... wrong
singular vs plural - There's vs there're - English Language Learners Stack Exchange
Videos
There're is common in speech, at least in certain dialects, but you'll rarely see it written. If I were being pedantic, I'd advise you to use there are in your example, because there is is definitely wrong, so there's could be considered wrong as well. But a huge number of English speakers, even those that are well-educated, use there's universally, regardless of the number of the noun in question, so you will probably not receive any odd looks for saying or writing there's, and if you do, just cite the fact that it can't be incorrect if a majority of people use it. As for me (a native New Englander), I use both, but may use there's in place of there're if I'm speaking quickly.
I don't think "there're" is ever going to fly -- it's not so much a contraction as a simple elision. The only thing being dropped is a glottal stop, which isn't a "real" sound in English.
From a strict prescriptivist grammar and usage standpoint, "there's" used with a plural is wrong. But in spoken language (which is the real language, squiggles on pages and screens are no more than an approximate rendering) we need to be careful with prescriptivist tendencies. It may offend the grammarian's ear, but the fact that a very large number of native speakers -- likely a preponderance of them -- make exactly the same "mistake" indicates that there is something else going on.
Remember that the rules of English, as we received them in school, are only an approximation of the real rules of the language, and that many of those rules were imposed in the 18th and 19th centuries by well-meaning scholars who aimed to make English a respectable, consistent and properly-documented language. It has never been such.
It's not incorrect, but it's difficult to say /'ðɛrər/, with two unstressed /r/s in a row, so mostly nobody does. The purpose of a contraction is to make things easier to say, not harder.
This difficulty is one of the forces that has led to widespread use and acceptance of there's as an unchanging existential idiom, like Es gibt in German, Hay in Spanish, Il y a in French, Yeʃ in Hebrew, etc.
Another is the fact that, if you think about it, number agreement contributes nothing to the meaning in this idiom, and should not appear at all, since the subject is there, which is a dummy noun that means nothing and is neither singular nor plural by logic, so by convention it should be singular.
That's good enough for nobody as a subject, too: Nobody is coming, even though it's neither singular nor plural, and even though it may represent many individual people and their individual decisions.
There's no special "watchdog" likely to come knocking on the door in the middle of the night if you use it, but it's relatively uncommon (witness that thin blue line at the bottom of the chart)...
On the other hand, there're over 400,000 instances, and it is more common than it was...
In short, there're doesn't have anything like the "accepted status" of there's, so if you want to be beyond reproach, avoid it. But don't feel you're completely alone if you insist on using it.
Personally, I wouldn't criticise the usage, but it's not something I'd normally (ever?) do myself.
It's a common mistake, even amongst natives.
It grates, but they continue to do it.
Personally, I think is has now reached "no fix" status. People will continue to do it whatever you tell them; that's how language evolves, much to the dismay of those who wish it didn't, on occasion.
The most irritating one was the Toys Я Us advert...
"There's millions says Geoffrey, all under one roof..."
which ran for decades.
Yes, but these are song lyrics. Poetic licence applies, and the lyricist probably thinks there's sounds better than there're.