"El Joan Petit fa vaga, vaga, vaga, vaga. El Joan Petit fa vaga, vaga pels seus drets. Pels seus drets, drets, drets. Pels preus dels lloguers. Pels finals del mes. Pels desnonaments. L'11M ens aturem".
For those unfamiliar with the traditional Catalan song, it would go something like this: "Little Joan goes on strike, strike, strike, strike. Little Joan goes on strike, striking for his rights. For his rights, rights, rights. For rental prices. To make ends meet. Against evictions. On 11-N, we come to a standstill."
The Little John version is not mine, don't think so. It was published by singer and content creator Julen Music a few days before this Wednesday's general strike, November 11, called by several trade union organizations to demand decent wages, affordable housing and better living conditions. "Wages, housing and prices."
A strike that brings to the table issues that affect us all. Because who can deny that housing has become much more expensive than the purchasing power of a large part of the population? Who can deny that making ends meet is increasingly difficult? Or that inflation, tax pressure and the cost of the most basic necessities have eroded our quality of life? All this in an economy that, by the way, can boast of GDP growth of 2.7%.
The problem exists. And it is serious. But in the face of discomfort and, above all, in the face of a call that combines labor demands with markedly political demands, I wonder if we are correctly identifying the causes of this situation, if we are playing tricks on ourselves, and above all, if we are proposing the right solutions.
Shall we start with housing?
First: housing. We have a supply problem
Let's start with an obvious fact: we don't have enough available housing where people need it. And when demand grows much faster than supply, the result is predictable: prices increase.
And this is not new. We have known for years that we need a greater housing supply and that we are at the bottom of Europe in terms of public residential stock. But according to the figures, the right keys have not been pressed: in recent years we have further decreased the supply. In fact, we have done so drastically.
According to data from the Rental Observatory, the number of available homes in the rental market in Barcelona has decreased by more than 30% since 2019, a pre-pandemic year. This figure reflects the evolution of available supply, not the total stock of rental housing.
"The number of available homes in the rental market in Barcelona has decreased by more than 30% since 2019"
And as Ivan Vaqué, CEO of Forcadell, said last week at the presentation of his real estate report, "in 2006 the housing market was marked by financial excesses and the risk associated with credit. Twenty years later, the main imbalance is different: scarcity of supply. Without more ready-to-build land, more agile licenses, and stable rules, no demand measure will make housing cheaper." No measure.
And so we go: in Barcelona, the average monthly rent has gone from 929.57 euros in 2018 to 1,134.61 euros in 2025, according to Incasòl data. An increase of approximately 22%.
And the difficulties do not end with rent. According to the College of Property, Commercial and Movable Goods Registrars of Spain, the price of housing in Barcelona has also increased by 21% since 2018, going from an average of 339,800 euros according to registered sales in 2018 to 412,000 euros in 2026.
In fact, buying an 85-square-meter home in Barcelona requires an effort equivalent to 7.2 years of gross income. A person would have to save their entire salary for 7 years to be able to afford the down payment for an apartment. And if we assume a theoretical savings rate of 11%, and add the purchase taxes – a minimum of 10% for ITP – the calculation climbs to 19.6 years.
Ivan Vaqué: "Without more ready-to-build land, more agile licenses, and stable rules, no demand measure will make housing cheaper"
These are figures that do not need much interpretation.
And, meanwhile, we are not building enough.
For years, Barcelona has had a housing policy that has turned regulatory intervention into a kind of substitute for expanding supply. The best example is the 30% protected housing reserve in new developments and major renovations, approved in 2018.
The intention was good: to achieve about 330 protected homes annually through the participation of the private sector. But the results have fallen far short of expectations: only 34 protected homes have been built under this regulation.
Eight years later, it's hard not to ask a question: if a policy is not yielding the expected results, shouldn't we review it?
It is not about denying the need for protected housing. Nor about giving up public-private collaboration. It is about understanding that a regulation that makes a development unviable can end up generating exactly the opposite of what it intended: less housing.
"We want the private sector to build more housing, but at the same time we have built a political discourse that often presents it as an enemy"
And here there is a contradiction that seems particularly significant to me. We want the private sector to build more housing, but at the same time we have built a political discourse that often presents it as an enemy. We want more owners to put flats on the rental market, but we treat them as if they were suspicious by definition.
Perhaps we should start to distinguish that not all owners are the same. Nor all developers. Nor all companies. A small saver who rents a second home is not the same as a large investment fund that operates with hundreds of properties.
In fact, it is worth a small reminder: according to the Metropolitan Housing Observatory of Barcelona (O-HB), in the data corresponding to 2025, 83.5% of Barcelona's owners only have one home. But these small owners concentrate 55.3% of the stock. At the other extreme, 2.2% of owners —those who have five or more— accumulate 22.8% of homes.
"83.5% of Barcelona's owners only have one home"
And when we look at who is behind this property, the differences are even greater: natural persons represent 96.3% of owners and own 84.5% of homes, while legal persons are only 3.7% of owners but concentrate 15.2% of the stock. Companies, by themselves, accumulate 12% of Barcelona's homes.
Therefore, we cannot pretend to expand the offer through demonization. That is, if we make it increasingly difficult for this offer to occur.
There are many other formulas to act on demand and incentivize desirable behaviors. For example, establishing tax advantages for owners who rent to people registered in Barcelona, or those who offer long-term contracts and affordable prices. Rewarding what we want to achieve, instead of limiting ourselves to penalizing what we don't like.
And if with housing the culprit is the owner, with salaries it seems that the culprit is the employer. So... shall we talk about salaries?
Second: salaries. A nominal increase is not necessarily an improvement in purchasing power
The interprofessional minimum wage has gone from 735.90 euros per month in fourteen payments in 2018 to 1,221 euros in 2026. And this represents an increase of 66%.
It's a significant increase, but, watch out, let's not get confused: the fact that the minimum wage has grown by 66% does not mean that workers' purchasing power has increased in the same proportion. In fact, it also doesn't mean that the salaries of Barcelona residents in general have grown by 66%.
If we look at the average salary in Barcelona, the picture is quite different. The average annual gross salary has gone from 30,807 euros in 2018 to 36,466 euros in 2024. That is, an increase of 18.4%.
And in this same period, accumulated CPI has grown more. According to INE data, the accumulated increase in CPI in Spain during this period has been 25.6%. And more accentuated, by the way, in food and beverages. In the shopping basket.
"The average annual gross salary of Barcelona residents has increased by 18.4% since 2018"
And this –basic food and housing– directly diminishes the purchasing power of Barcelona residents. In fact, according to City Council data, even in 2024 the average salary in Barcelona had not recovered the purchasing power of 2010: it was 4.2% below.
Therefore, yes: there is a problem of purchasing power. And it is perfectly legitimate to demand salaries that allow for a dignified life.
But here we also need to introduce nuances. Not all salaries have evolved equally. Not all companies have the same capacity to absorb salary increases. And we cannot confuse large listed corporations, multinationals, and SMEs, which often operate with radically different margins, structures, and investment capacities.
When we talk about record turnovers, for example, we should also ask ourselves what happens with costs, margins, and profits. Billing more is not necessarily earning more.
Because here we encounter another element that often remains outside the debate: taxation, both for citizens and for companies.
According to the Institute of Economic Studies, in 2024 Spanish companies contributed 33.9% of public revenue, compared to the European Union average of 26%. In terms of GDP, corporate tax pressure represented 12.5%, compared to 10.3% in Europe. The tax effort of Spanish taxpayers in 2024 was also 14.1% above the community average. Here we all receive.
And this does not mean that any tax is bad or that companies should not contribute to the sustainability of public services. But it does force us to ask ourselves to what extent we can continue to increase the burdens on those who produce, invest, and hire without compromising the ability to generate economic activity.
"To what extent can we continue to increase the burdens on those who produce, invest, and hire without compromising the ability to generate economic activity"
That is, there is an enormous difference between the "we will fry you with taxes" that we have heard these days, and wanting to build a prosperous business fabric, capable of generating wealth, quality employment, and better salaries. A system that is not only capable of redistributing existing wealth, but also creates the conditions for there to be more.
Because, in the end, where do salaries come from? Where do the resources to finance public services come from? Where do the contributions that sustain pensions come from? From an economy that produces, competes, invests, and generates added value.
Third (and last): the problem may be more structural than we think
We can discuss salaries, rents, taxes, and corporate responsibilities – let's do it! – but ultimately the debate lies in the economic model we are building.
Catalonia's GDP per capita data is quite illustrative. In 2005, we were at 26,485 euros per inhabitant, compared to 22,110 for the European average. Twenty years later, in 2025, provisional data places us at 41,052 euros, while the EU average reaches 41,600.
That is, we have gone from being almost 20% above the European average to being slightly below it. We are becoming poorer in relative terms.
"We are becoming poorer in relative terms"
And this is not solved by pointing fingers at the landlord who rents an apartment, the entrepreneur who tries to maintain their activity, or the company that makes profits. It is solved by asking ourselves why our economy does not generate enough added value, as the Fènix Report pointed out a few months ago, or why we have such a high dependence on certain service activities and why it is so difficult for us to gain productivity.
We need a more technified, more industrialized, more productive economy with greater capacity for innovation. An economy that generates higher value-added jobs and higher wages because it is more competitive, not because a rule obliges them to be paid. Also, an agile and professionalized administration that can respond to the socioeconomic challenges arising from these structural imbalances. Because, if we add demographic aging and the growing pressure on the pension system and the welfare state to all this, we have a challenge that goes far beyond a strike day.
And amidst the –legitimate– protests that are today stopping a part of the economy and taking to the streets, I see the risk that certain political and social discourses are turning prosperity into something suspicious. As if having assets were necessarily speculating. As if owning a company were necessarily exploiting. As if obtaining profits were incompatible with contributing to collective well-being.
"I see the risk that certain political and social discourses are turning prosperity into something suspicious"
Simplification is very convenient. It allows us to identify a culprit, build a narrative, and promise seemingly simple solutions. But the reality is that public policies should not be judged by intentions, but by results.
The 30% reserve is an example. Regulation can have an impeccable social purpose and, at the same time, produce disappointing results. And when this happens, one must have the courage to rectify. Because we cannot pretend to have more housing, more wages, more public services, and more well-being if, at the same time, we are weakening the structures that make it possible to generate them.
We don't need more enemies. We need better policies. And, above all, an economy capable of generating enough wealth so that living with dignity stops being a demand and becomes a reasonable expectation again.
Perhaps, before looking for someone to point fingers at, we should start asking ourselves what we are doing wrong as a country. And after the analysis, the diagnosis, assume the responsibility of building alternatives. And this responsibility is also ours, the citizens'.