Yes. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what struggle means. $4750/month is enough to rent a super nice place or a mortgage on a decent detached house (nothing fancy but just under a million). And that’s not to mention the other $5000+/month leftover after taxes.
Anyone struggling to afford housing while making $190,000 (let alone more) is either grossly incompetent with money or is confusing “struggling to pay for housing” with “not being able to afford as big or fancy a house as they’d like”. If you go with the standard 30% for housing costs vs income (which to anyone making $80,000 or less is impossible), you’re looking at $4750/month. That’s not a struggle by anyone’s definition.
That’s why firing the executives would be so much more effective, I just don’t know how that could work with the government forcing a company to fire someone. That being said, I also don’t know how they should be able to force workers to work, so maybe that could be some sort of condition.
I am of the belief that any back to work legislation should come with a major penalty to the employer. For a private company this could be in the form of a huge fine, but if it’s a public body it should come with the firing of the executives. If a group of workers is too essential for them to have the right to strike, then allowing negotiations to break down shows gross incompetence on the part of the negotiation team.
If I’m understanding your sentence correctly, that is not at all what the article says. The 11% high confidence number is from the 17% that said they are not at all hopeful about democracy. Overall a very confusingly worded article.
I don’t know what kind of altruistic landlords you’re renting from, but all the ones I have had dragged their feet and eventually “fixed” the problem in the cheapest and bare-minimum-that’s-technically-true way possible. They’d love nothing more than for me to leave so they could jack the rent 100%.