Australia is currently a case of too much money chasing too few goods [1], especially in its rental market. Huge net migrations into Australia without commensurate increases in housing stock have caused rent increases but also left some without a place to live and caused some long-term tenants to be unable to continue to afford their place [2].<p>Most Australians just see their salaries go a little less far (due to inflation), but on the extreme end it means homelessness, at least in the short term, and all the associated stress.<p>Media has a tendency to piggyback off the hype around this legitimate problem to peddle all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas, sometimes over simplifying the narrative to (wealthy|employer|landlord) == bad, and (poor|employee|renter) == good.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-pull_inflation#:~:text=Demand%2Dpull%20inflation%20occurs%20when,money%20chasing%20too%20few%20goods%22" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-pull_inflation#:~:text=...</a>.<p>[2] <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-12/immigration-house-prices-jobs-economic-growth-migration-review/103214876" rel="nofollow">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-12/immigration-house-pri...</a>
I feel like this is sort of silly. Unless I am missing something I would expect almost everyone to answer the survey in such a manner that would financially benefit them. With the exception of remote work I would imagine if a want isn’t met no one would quit.
We sort of have this. My employer REALLY wants everyone back at the office, but there is the obvious pushback, so everyone can choose how much money they want/need to commute and the employer hands the cash. Even with this cash option, many are only doing 2-3 days per week at the office, other simply refuse all together and said they will resign if there is any mandatory at-the-office days.