The Commute

Stark

Tremelo wrote: »

That's part of the big con that so many gullible people just accept. When you hear something often enough, why question it, eh?

Renting is not dead money. You're paying for a service. You're paying for excellent flexibility. You're paying for freedom from maintenance and repair costs. Renting is a *good* thing, if you rent sensibly.

But hey, why not rent your house from the bank for a few decades instead, pay them a nice cut of interest too, and pump thousands into lawns, appliances, furnishings, services, and general upkeep while you're at it.

Dead money :rolleyes:

+1. The most important thing to consider imo is the cost of rent compared against the cost of monthly interest rate payments. At the moment, my rent is significantly less. Have no plans to buy until I have enough of a lump sum saved up so when I do take out a mortgage, the interest I'm paying makes sense cost wise. In the meantime, I get to live somewhere where a landlord has to suffer the costs of maintaining the property.

Rubecula

Snakeblood wrote: »

That bolded bit makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that people on longer commutes could do them quicker but choose not to generally?

No not at all, What I was saying relates purely to me.

Last week my phone rang as I was getting ready to leave for work and it was very important. By the time I left I was running five minutes late. Too late to phone work and let them know I would be late. If I lived a half hour away I would be able to let them know, and possibly drive a bit quicker in order to make up time.

Abi

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

people with jobs must think they have more worth than the unemployed,ie they think they are better than the unemployed.

If you think I'm going to take the bait, you've another thing coming.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Growing up I had a large enough garden but spent 99% of my time as a child playing on the local 'green' or park. I never spent any time in the garden and I don't know of anyone my age who did. We could have been out there all day during the summer and regularly were. The garden was just a patch of grass, big deal. I think the whole idea that children need a bit of garden is a bit untrue, I know I could have happily (and for all intents and purposes did) happily grown up without one.

Obviously children aren't going to want to stay confined to their gardens, I was talking about younger children and toddlers, where it's not safe for them to be out on the street, or out of their parents view.

Cianos wrote: »

Whatever their options may be!

Thats too vague, sorry.

You can dismiss all my points with ifs and buts if it pleases you

I'm doing no such thing, putting up an opposing argument is being dismissive now?

but the point remains that people see their gardens as giving their children a place to play as part of justification of buying a house that demands an insane commute, when there are loads of things for children to do in urban environments.

Who sounds snobby now?

You're calling me a snob now? When looking for somewhere to live myself, I considered properties with and without gardens. Have a preference for one does not make me a snob, let's not be silly here.

that people are easily sold on anything that suits the norm - front/back garden? grand. Quiet area? Grand. 2 hour drive to work? Ah sure, we couldn't afford the same closer to the city.

I think you're forgetting that some people already had more local jobs when they bought their homes. Some have lost their jobs and have had to seek work further afield in order to keep the roof over their heads. Yet again, the snobbery brush comes out.

I think too many people undertake this lifestyle without real consideration of what they and their children are missing out on and what benefits there are from the alternatives. Oh...but it has a front and back garden.

See above.

Snakeblood

Rubecula wrote: »

No not at all, What I was saying relates purely to me.

Last week my phone rang as I was getting ready to leave for work and it was very important. By the time I left I was running five minutes late. Too late to phone work and let them know I would be late. If I lived a half hour away I would be able to let them know, and possibly drive a bit quicker in order to make up time.

Well, yeah, but still you're saying you can make the theoretical long commute shorter. I'm just fairly convinced that most people are driving/commuting as quickly as possible and you're seeing a possible advantage that simply isn't there, or if it is there, is probably as vulnerable to lengthening as shortening.

Sorry, I'm not having a go, I just have an hour commute, and while the time of the commute is faster or shorter, that is really outside my control, as I imagine it is for most commuters.

cournioni

ninja900 wrote: »

No the problem is that the programme was extremely poor. It set itself up as addressing the concerns of everyday people but instead focused on a few people who can best be described as lunatics who refuse to emotionally commit to moving their families to where their work is.

Its very hard to commit to living where your work is, when your work is in Dublin.

markpb

cournioni wrote: »

Its very hard to commit to living where your work is, when your work is in Dublin.

??

Jimoslimos

A couple of years ago, having a second weekend home in the countryside was being promoted as a lifestyle choice on many property programmes. It is not uncommon to see this in the UK, especially amongst city workers in London.

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

A couple of years ago, having a second weekend home in the countryside was being promoted as a lifestyle choice on many property programmes. It is not uncommon to see this in the UK, especially amongst city workers in London.

Or the other way round, where (better off) commuters had a "crash pad*" in the city and the family home in the sticks.

*studio or one bed flat.

mathie

Trent Reznor must make a fortune off RTE.
They're always playing his music in these 'edgy' documentaries.

Cianos

Abi wrote: »

Thats too vague, sorry.

I originally said that people can live wherever they want, ie where they live they are living there because they chose to live there. Replace my original usage of the word "want" with "choose"...that's all; "People can live where they choose" etc etc. Same way you might say "Say what you want, but....".

I'm doing no such thing, putting up an opposing argument is being dismissive now?

I'm simply describing how there are many things available for children and families in a city to help argue against the conservative idea that cities are not child-friendly. So when an opposing argument is based on nit picking, it is fairly dismissive yes.

You're calling me a snob now? When looking for somewhere to live myself, I considered properties with and without gardens. Have a preference for one does not make me a snob, let's not be silly here.

I'm referring to you calling the houses not very impressive.

I think you're forgetting that some people already had more local jobs when they bought their homes. Some have lost their jobs and have had to seek work further afield in order to keep the roof over their heads. Yet again, the snobbery brush comes out.

I'm not talking about those who find themselves having to face long commutes out of no choice because of unforeseen circumstances. As I said above I have a lot of respect for those who slug through to make the best of their situation.

Scanlas The 2nd

Abi wrote: »

If you think I'm going to take the bait, you've another thing coming.


.

I'm not fishing here. The point I made is a valid one, people are basing their "self worth" on arbitrary things that doesn't make sense. If you get self worth from a job then you must look down on people who don't have jobs. You can use your bait line to avoid facing that reality but it's the truth.

Stark

Rubecula wrote: »

No not at all, What I was saying relates purely to me.

Last week my phone rang as I was getting ready to leave for work and it was very important. By the time I left I was running five minutes late. Too late to phone work and let them know I would be late. If I lived a half hour away I would be able to let them know, and possibly drive a bit quicker in order to make up time.

There's a lot less that can go wrong on a 30 min commute than a 2 hour commute. A 5 minute phone call is going to cost you a lot less than an accident/flooding/ice etc. on the motorway on your way into work. Living 6km from work meant that I was only a half hour late getting home last Monday night with the floods. Had I been living in Portlaoise or whatever, I would have been stuck the office for the evening.

Snakeblood

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not fishing here. The point I made is a valid one, people are basing their "self worth" on arbitrary things that doesn't make sense. If you get self worth from a job then you must look down on people who don't have jobs. You can use your bait line to avoid facing that reality but it's the truth.

You don't understand the difference between self worth, and seeing worth in others, and you don't seem to understand that just because someone sees something as a positive, the lack of it in others is not necessarily a negative.

desertcircus

Storminateacup wrote: »

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think more people in Ireland need to be realistic about work and family life. People are obsessed with raising their kids in the country, but want the kind of well-paying professional jobs that by and large are going to be in a city. But there are only so many hours in the day, and you can't have it all. Yet suggest you raise your kids in Dublin or - GOD FORBID - in a flat instead of a house, and people look at you like you have three heads.

If you want a well-paying professional position and you want to spend time with your family, then be prepared to have a smaller house (for probably more money) but a shorter commute. But it's annoying that people complain about 2-hour commutes because they think they are entitled to both city wages and a country lifestyle. Just pick one and quit whinging.

Because god forbid people aim for the best of both worlds. Why should people have to settle? Choose between raising their children in the country and a well paid professional job?

I grew up in the country. I want the same - the best - for my child. And if that means I go back to work when she's almost 2 months old, and commute for four hours a day to give it to her, then that's what I'll do. Renting property is dead money. I would rather put that 1k a month towards our house.

Ideally, things would be different, but hey. They're not. It won't be like this forever.

This is outright lunacy. The average house in this country is losing value at a rate of far more than a thousand quid a month. You could move somewhere close to work, get an extra two hours a day with her and come out financially better off by paying far less for the house in three years' time. The phrase "rent is dead money" is one of the worst ideas ever apoken aloud in this country.

Abi

Cianos wrote: »

I originally said that people can live wherever they want, ie where they live they are living there because they chose to live there. Replace my original usage of the word "want" with "choose"...that's all; "People can live where they choose" etc etc. Same way you might say "Say what you want, but....".

You really think everyone has this option?

Some people who choose their home at the time may have been living considerably closer to their jobs then. A lot of people can't even sell their homes now, even if they wanted to. For most, the 'want' and 'choose' option has been removed, and all that's left is 'survive' in the only way they can.

I'm simply describing how there are many things available for children and families in a city to help argue against the conservative idea that cities are not child-friendly. So when an opposing argument is based on nit picking, it is fairly dismissive yes.

I break down a person's points to make points of my own. Calling it nit-picking is a weak out, if you ask me.

I'm referring to you calling the houses not very impressive.

I did no such thing. I merely said a lot of the new-builds of the boom time got considerably smaller, and you couldn't swing a cat in them.

I might add, I nearly bought one of these for the sake of being on the ladder. So no, I don't think I'm too good for these houses. I think that renders your 'snob' comment invalid.

I'm not talking about those who find themselves having to face long commutes out of no choice because of unforeseen circumstances. As I said above I have a lot of respect for those who slug through to make the best of their situation.

Well, I am. Each case is different, and some more extreme than others - but I don't believe that anyone would put them through that unless they felt - in their own case, it was necessary.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you get self worth from a job then you must look down on people who don't have jobs.

A) You're telling me how I think.

Ask people standing in the post office every week that have barely been a day out of work all of their lives. Ask them do they enjoy being out of work and how is it effecting them.

I don't look down on anyone on the dole that isn't there by choice. That's what I think. Not your opinion of how I think.

Scanlas The 2nd

Snakeblood wrote: »

You don't understand the difference between self worth, and seeing worth in others, and you don't seem to understand that just because someone sees something as a positive, the lack of it in others is not necessarily a negative.

If someone thinks they have less worth by lacking a certain characteristic such as being employed but doesn't think other people have less worth I find that peculiar logic.

but if you don't change your mind we'll have to agree to disagree to agree.

thecornflake

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

It's insane being honest. I travel from up and down to college everyday, it all depends whether I drive or get the train, but I am looking at inbetween an hour - an hour and half at the very least.. By the end of the week I am wreaked and use one day to catch up on sleep. Nothing like public transport to crush ones soul imho.

I walk two hours a day to get to college, public transport just isn't worth it for my journey.

desertcircus

thecornflake wrote: »

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

It's insane being honest. I travel from up and down to college everyday, it all depends whether I drive or get the train, but I am looking at inbetween an hour - an hour and half at the very least.. By the end of the week I am wreaked and use one day to catch up on sleep. Nothing like public transport to crush ones soul imho.

I walk two hours a day to get to college, public transport just isn't worth it for my journey.

Bicycle?

Snakeblood

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If someone thinks they have less worth by lacking a certain characteristic such as being employed but doesn't think other people have less worth I find that peculiar logic.

Find it peculiar logic by all means. Don't tell other people how they should feel or think because you think that way, it's arrogant and betrays a lack of understanding that not everyone feels like you.

Cianos

Abi wrote: »

You really think everyone has this option?

Some people who choose their home at the time may have been living considerably closer to their jobs then. A lot of people can't even sell their homes now, even if they wanted to. For most, the 'want' and 'choose' option has been removed, and all that's left is 'survive' in the only way they can.

I never said everyone has this option. But most people have some kind of choice in where they choose to buy a residence.

I break down a person's points to make points of my own. Calling it nit-picking is a weak out, if you ask me.

But you didn't break down my point. You claimed that city parks, beaches, zoos and cinemas aren't worthy examples of children's recreation activities. They all usually look quite jam packed full of kids to me.

I did no such thing. I merely said a lot of the new-builds of the boom time got considerably smaller, and you couldn't swing a cat in them.

I'll quote this bit for the second time so...

Two points here - one, the 'gardens' given with the houses during the boom time, well you can't even call them that, and in some cases non-existent. Two, the houses sold during this time were often as impressive as their back gardens. You couldn't swing a cat in them, so calling them houses is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I am. Each case is different, and some more extreme than others - but I don't believe that anyone would put them through that unless they felt - in their own case, it was necessary.

For those who have no choice due to unforeseen circumstances and have to make do then there is no conversation there, they simply have to do what they have to do and that's it. And as I have said numerous times already, those are not the people I am talking about, so I'm not sure if you're just trolling away now at this point.

thecornflake

desertcircus wrote: »

Bicycle?

I used to do that, but the sheer amount of clowns that drive on the roads is unreal added to me being tired in the morning and I felt that it just wasn't worth the risk. I would regularly have close calls on the bike.

Its one hour to college in the morning, which is when Im basically asleep so it usually works out that i wake up just when i get in which is good.

On the hour home it isn't too bad as i go over all the lectures in my head and think about what i need to do/work on when i get home.

cournioni

markpb wrote: »

??

Why live there when you can have a better quality of life else where? My missus commutes daily from Dundalk, comes back to a lovely place in the centre of town for half the rent that she would have to pay in Dublin for a shoebox in a crap area.

rainbowdash

The only real commuter from what I could see was the guy on the train.

The hurler was just coming home for matches. Presumbably that starts in January and finishes once Westmeath are beaten. I can't see the point in coming home to play for Westmeath, Kilkenny maybe but the Westmeath hurlers ain't going places.

The Sligo guy has emmigrated and comes home once in a while, why he doesn't fly is beyond me. My guess is the producers wanted somebody to be doing the boat thing and found him. Its not commuting anyway.

The Donegal one lives in Dublin and goes home for the weekend.

The nurse made a decision to get some work experience having got her degree, it was a short term plan until she gets something in Ireland. A bit of a brave choice leaving the family, but it puts her between a rock and a hard place.

Abi

Cianos wrote: »

I never said everyone has this option. But most people have some kind of choice in where they choose to buy a residence.

This may be so, but there's no crystal ball that will tell you the arse is going to fall out of the bucket.

But you didn't break down my point. You claimed that city parks, beaches, zoos and cinemas aren't worthy examples of children's recreation activities. They all usually look quite jam packed full of kids to me.

Quote me where I said they aren't worthy examples please, with that exact wording.

I'll quote this bit for the second time so...

Taken out of context so you can continue to brand me as a snob. I've told you I almost bought one of these houses. And the only reason why that didn't go through was because I was unsure whether I wanted to get financially tied to someone I've split up with since. Again, point rendered invalid.

For those who have no choice due to unforeseen circumstances and have to make do then there is no conversation there, they simply have to do what they have to do and that's it. And as I have said numerous times already, those are not the people I am talking about, so I'm not sure if you're just trolling away now at this point.

The fact that you don't like me arguing my view and calling me a troll speaks volumes.

I think we both accept that there are some in this situation because they've been forced to commute because they've lost work. but your determination to point out that wannabe snobs force this on themselves so they can have a garden is the bit about the debate that irks me. I really don't personally believe anyone would do that. I think if there was a way of relocating, most probably would.

professore

Storminateacup wrote: »

Both myself and my partner commute daily, both working in dublin, which is about a 2.5hr commute in the am and 1.5hr in the evenings. He has to be in work earlier than me and is home before me, so we both have to drive.

We have a 5 month old child and to be honest, it's horrible having to commute so far knowing if something happens godforbid, we are both so far away.

Sometimes I feel incredibly guilty, being away from her for so long, and it broke my heart going back to work when she was two months old but ultimately were both doing it for her. We're both young, both starting off in our careers and Dublin is where the best oppertunities are.

Very aware how judgemental people are of young parents, how theyre stereotyped and I don't want that for my child.

If it wasn't for her, Id have no problem taking a lesser paid/lesser experience job closer to home, but that's how it is.

I know it will be worth it in the long run

Having been in the same situation, and having done the same with our eldest daughter, I can tell you it's never worth it. Those years will never come back. Look at making ends meet some other way. You would be surprised if you sat down and worked out how much extra it costs to go to work every week and if you throw in babysitters, creches, extra tax etc. it is of little or no financial benefit, unless you are a real high flyer.

sunflower27

Mine is about 10 min walk door-to-door. I know how lucky I am

Cianos

Abi wrote: »

This may be so, but there's no crystal ball that will tell you the arse is going to fall out of the bucket.

It is so. Many people have bought houses knowing full well they will have to commute 4 hours a day. Many probably bought them for those same old frenzied buzz words of 'getting on the ladder' and 'renting is dead money'.

Quote me where I said they aren't worthy examples please, with that exact wording.

Why with that exact wording? People are allowed use a word that represents anothers view from their perspective, without requiring that word to be used by the other person in the first place. I gave my examples of city based activities for kids that people often don't consider, when valuing a front/back garden so highly. Your response was to point out the holes in them as examples of things kids and families can do. You don't have to use the same words for the meaning to be clear.

Taken out of context so you can continue to brand me as a snob. I've told you I almost bought one of these houses. And the only reason why that didn't go through was because I was unsure whether I wanted to get financially tied to someone I've split up with since. Again, point rendered invalid.

After you were branding me as a snob, I saw an opportunity to show you how people can (mis)interpret and be (mis)interpreted as snobs.

The fact that you don't like me arguing my view and calling me a troll speaks volumes.

Argue your view all you want, I have no problem whatsoever with that. But when I repeat several times that I'm talking about one thing (people who had a choice) and you eventually state you're actually talking about another (people who don't have a choice), you're just wasting my time.

I think we both accept that there are some in this situation because they've been forced to commute because they've lost work. but your determination to point out that wannabe snobs force this on themselves so they can have a garden is the bit about the debate that irks me. I really don't personally believe anyone would do that. I think if there was a way of relocating, most probably would.

Yes I totally agree that there are some in the situation because of unforeseen circumstances.

There are also many out there who rushed to get a house and chose their location knowing full well it meant a terribly long commute. The motivation behind their choice more than likely being the want for what Irish people view as a 'normal' house, and refusing to consider a place closer to work that didn't match that conservative view of what a family dwelling should be, such as having its own bit of land and a garden. And now they're living through that choice and missing out on a lot of their kid's lives. It's not about snobbery, it's about conservative thinking and rushing in to buying. I don't think society views people who live hours away from their place of work as privileged.

HavingCrack

Abi wrote: »

Obviously children aren't going to want to stay confined to their gardens, I was talking about younger children and toddlers, where it's not safe for them to be out on the street, or out of their parents view.

I spent the earliest years of my life in a terraced house with a very small yard. As a toddler my parents used to bring me to the local park nearly everyday apparently. Granted some people may think a garden is great but it doesn't seem to have had much of an affect on my childhood to be honest.

Lawrence1895

I Germany, you are supposed to travel 90 minutes to work each way, when the Employment Agency offers a job to you...just to mention it

Simtech

syklops wrote: »

Yeah, but the lad who was 'commuting' home to play hurling every week. Surely he can be classed as a lunatic, no?

As far as I know the GAA paid his fares.

saa

Simtech wrote: »

As far as I know the GAA paid his fares.

And not just that the school he teaches him isn't too far from London city airport.

That over night sail and rail is rough though, met a guy on it once pisshed off his hole saying how he has to do this every week.

Someone above was saying why wouldnt he fly, my only guess is that with the expenses he probably doesn't have a lot left over so if the flight is 100 and the sail is 45.. he's going to do it for sure.

You know its not That bad, its the two or three hour wait in the cold after you get off the train.

mathie

HavingCrack wrote: »

Granted some people may think a garden is great but it doesn't seem to have had much of an affect on my childhood to be honest.

But .... but ... but ... your username!

markpb

cournioni wrote: »

Why live there when you can have a better quality of life else where? My missus commutes daily from Dundalk, comes back to a lovely place in the centre of town for half the rent that she would have to pay in Dublin for a shoebox in a crap area.

Quality of life includes time spent relaxing, not time spent on a train or driving. The longer you commute, the lower your quality of life (coming from someone who used to commute 3 hours a day). The more dependency you have on long distance commuting, the more susceptible you are to problems like road closures, floods, traffic, etc. I gave up my commute and now live a 30 minute walk, 15 minute cycle or 10 minutes on the Luas to work. I leaves me with 3+ hours a day more to spend with my family.

A monthly ticket from Dundalk to Dublin is €267.00 assuming you're not travelling any futher by train or on any other form of transport. Parking is another €30 per month so that's almost €300 a month just to get to the city centre. Houses in Dundalk are between 500-700 a month so there's not much difference between Dundalk plus travelling costs and renting in Dublin.

Of course, if you dislike Dublin (having actually lived in it) and want to live in Dundalk, that's fair enough.

whirlpool

Abi wrote: »

She objects to people telling non-Dubs to move to Dublin = attitude problem & chip on shoulder? Climb down off your little box there and stop making a show of yourself.
.

Eh hang on a second. Can you just point out to me where I said that I was referring to her mention of Dublin as being the chip on her shoulder? You seem to have conjured that all up on your own because you wanted so badly to be angry with my post.

Regarding jess's mention of Dublin - I think you'll find that posters suggested someone should move to Dublin NOT because they thought people should "move to Dublin" - it had nothing to do with Dublin. Their point was that the person might be better suited to living closer to work. NOT to Dublin. :rolleyes:

Given that I feel that it was very clear that the poster was not suggesting "Dublin is the place to be!" I'm going to go out on a limb and take it that you have a chip on your shoulder about Dubliners yourself. But I could be wrong - I can't see everything from up here on my "little box." :rolleyes:



EDIT: P.S. "Making a show of" myself? :pac: Gosh you're really clutching at straws here, god love ye.

Anyway, as you were..

Storminateacup

Tremelo wrote: »

That's part of the big con that so many gullible people just accept. When you hear something often enough, why question it, eh?

Renting is not dead money. You're paying for a service. You're paying for excellent flexibility. You're paying for freedom from maintenance and repair costs. Renting is a *good* thing, if you rent sensibly.

But hey, why not rent your house from the bank for a few decades instead, pay them a nice cut of interest too, and pump thousands into lawns, appliances, furnishings, services, and general upkeep while you're at it.

Dead money :rolleyes:

Well I apologise for wanting to own my own home instead of paying someone elses morgages for them.

homerjay2005

syklops wrote: »

The guy who commutes to dublin from limerick everyday. Why not get digs in dublin? The money you would spend on trains alone. Why wouldn't you just move up to Dublin? He has been doing it for 3 years. Thats nuts!

exactly, as pointed out by a good few here already, people have to make choices. if its a family thing, what sort of life have they if they are travelling all hours of the morning and night?

the though of leaving home just doesnt appeal to some people. i did 6 weeks of over and back to eastern europe for work and it killed me.

Snakeblood

Storminateacup wrote: »

Well I apologise for wanting to own my own home instead of paying someone elses morgages for them.

You can want your own home, but a lot of people feel (rightly in my opinion) that saying things like 'rent is dead money' is what encouraged people into the housing bubble.

Rent clearly isn't dead money. You're not paying someone elses mortgage, you're paying for somewhere for you to live, and the flexibility to move somewhere else if circumstances or your quality of accommodation change. You might not feel like that's value for money (and it might not be for you), but it's certainly not dead.

homerjay2005

Storminateacup wrote: »

Well I apologise for wanting to own my own home instead of paying someone elses morgages for them.

this is one of the biggest misconception in this country. those who bought houses in 04 to 09 has this attitude and apart from the ones who have a home they can afford, the majority wish they never bought.

tell me, would you rather over pay about 30% on a house and spend 5 or 6 extra years paying interest to the bank or, wait for houses to be worth their true value while renting? for example, if i had bought the house i am currently renting 3 years ago, my mortgage would be about 2,000 a month right now. i am paying 1350 in rent. if i decide to buy in this area in the next year or so, my mortgage will be about 1500. i made the decision to be sensible and wait and it saved me about 100,000 at least.

this property ladder bulls*it is the primary reason we are where we are and this crazy irish concept of being obsessed with owning property.

desertcircus

Storminateacup wrote: »

Tremelo wrote: »

That's part of the big con that so many gullible people just accept. When you hear something often enough, why question it, eh?

Renting is not dead money. You're paying for a service. You're paying for excellent flexibility. You're paying for freedom from maintenance and repair costs. Renting is a *good* thing, if you rent sensibly.

But hey, why not rent your house from the bank for a few decades instead, pay them a nice cut of interest too, and pump thousands into lawns, appliances, furnishings, services, and general upkeep while you're at it.

Dead money :rolleyes:

Well I apologise for wanting to own my own home instead of paying someone elses morgages for them.

Even if it costs you an extra fifty thousand quid over the life of the mortgage?

Houses in this country are losing value faster than they're collecting rent; in that circumstance it makes absolutely no financial sense to buy. In some cases you'd be better off renting a place and physically burning fifty quid a month than buying. "Rent is dead money" is a terrible approach. If you want to own a place, fine, just don't try to fool yourself it's financially sensible.

Lord Trollington

Storminateacup wrote: »

Because god forbid people aim for the best of both worlds. Why should people have to settle? Choose between raising their children in the country and a well paid professional job?

I grew up in the country. I want the same - the best - for my child. And if that means I go back to work when she's almost 2 months old, and commute for four hours a day to give it to her, then that's what I'll do. Renting property is dead money. I would rather put that 1k a month towards our house.

Ideally, things would be different, but hey. They're not. It won't be like this forever.

There in lies the problem in Ireland Today, the myth that renting property is dead money.

I wonder were the Irish Government get teacher to subliminally tell Kids in school in the 80's early 90's that renting was dead money.

Storminateacup

But I'm not buying a home. It wouldn't be my dream home. We are building our own. And yes, for extra money. At least it'll be ours.

Lord Trollington

Storminateacup wrote: »

But I'm not buying a home. It wouldn't be my dream home. We are building our own. And yes, for extra money. At least it'll be ours.

Don't apologise for wanting to own your own home, its allowed.

But coming out with an absolute gem that renting is dead money is something that should be put to bed.

Why build or buy a dream home when you have from far an ideal life to keep living the "dream".

smash

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Why build or buy a dream home when you have from far an ideal life to keep living the "dream".

I have to agree with this. It's great to have your perfect house but to travel over 4 hours a day just isn't right.

southsiderosie

Storminateacup wrote: »

Because god forbid people aim for the best of both worlds. Why should people have to settle? Choose between raising their children in the country and a well paid professional job?

TBH, this just sounds immature - life as a grown-up is about making compromises and choices. Again, unless you have a professional job where you can telecommute, this is a completely unrealistic way of thinking about work-life balance. To me, this is like saying "I want to be a high powered attorney and make lots of money! But I want to be home every day at 5pm to see my kids!". You can't have it both ways.

Snakeblood

southsiderosie wrote: »

TBH, this just sounds immature - life as a grown-up is about making compromises and choices. Again, unless you have a professional job where you can telecommute, this is a completely unrealistic way of thinking about work-life balance. To me, this is like saying "I want to be a high powered attorney and make lots of money! But I want to be home every day at 5pm to see my kids!". You can't have it both ways.

HAS ALLIE MCBEAL TAUGHT US NOTHING?!

bamboozle

Storminateacup wrote: »

But I'm not buying a home. It wouldn't be my dream home. We are building our own. And yes, for extra money. At least it'll be ours.

each to their own but i cant for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to commit themselves to 20 hours of a commute per week when they are not yet tied into a mortgage. Plus if you want a professional career will you not have to sit professional body exams and attend lectures to do so? generally these would be based in cities & larger towns.

Frowzy

I did "The Commute" a few year ago, well in 1997/1998 to be exact (SHAME!)

On the train to the BIG Schmoke at 6.20am, into Heuston, hit the ground running to get the first bus (no luas then) up the quays and run over to College Green, phew...

home again at 8 that evening.....

I didn't have kids at the time, couldn't have done it if I had, but I didn't consider moving to Dublin because I knew absolutely nobody there (still don't). There was the same 6 people on the platform every morning and everybody thought we were mad, we were the only cars in the car park back then - but now there isn't enough room in the car park every day it's over flowing. Luckily enough I only had to do it for a couple of years, for me it was worth it, the extra time travelling was better than sitting in a bed sit on my own. I'm guessing I'm probably older than a lot of posters here (I'm mid-30's) and I was lucky enough to be earning enough in Dublin to be pumping the money into building a house down in the sticks before the boom hit.

I don't know what's the right decision, or even if there is a right decision as everyone's circumstances are different. I do know a couple who decided to move nearer Dublin rather that commute, they moved to Portarlington and commuted to Dublin everyday. But they knew nobody in Portarlington and ended up driving to Tipperary every evening from Portarlington anyway.

I was lucky enough to be able to hand in my notice the year I got married and get a job down here, but for the people who are stuck commuting indefinately it must be a nightmare. Plain and simple fact is that there isn't enough jobs outside Dublin, but surely everyone can't move to Dublin?

If I were the girl living in the middle of Donegal however I'd prefer to lick the floor of Tesco's in Letterkenny clean on a daily basis than what she puts herself through. Just my opinion though

jonnny68

Years ago these 2 lads from in or around Holyhead area used to commute 4 days a week on the ferry to Dublin to work in Dublin docklands, used to get the ferry a lot myself when it was cheaper than flying and used to bump into them sometimes,said it was a long slog but they were used to it, said they travelled that regularly on the ferry they done them a monthly deal and it worked out cheaper than getting digs in Dublin, ive no idea if they are still doing it as that was a long time ago but that is one hell of a serious commute having to get the ferry middle of the night and then again the following night, home for a few hours and then back on the road again.

as for that programme, whilst i have every sympathy with people especially with families (i can relate to that) i cant be dealing with "culchie elitists" they'll gladly work in Dublin but generally hate the place and want to live in their own little backwater and constantly complain about the daily commute,well you cant have it all your own way your lucky to have a job so put up or stay on the dole.

syklops

This thread has taken a rather unfortunate turn. It started off discussing a TV program, which was fine, but I think the waters got muddied a bit by some people in similar situations posting their stories, and then getting offended when words like lunacy are mentioned, refferring to the extreme commuters in the show not the posters.

Abi wrote: »

She objects to people telling non-Dubs to move to Dublin = attitude problem & chip on shoulder? Climb down off your little box there and stop making a show of yourself.

You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder, yourself. No one mentioned dubs versus non-dubs until you did.

markpb

Frowzy wrote: »

I didn't have kids at the time, couldn't have done it if I had, but I didn't consider moving to Dublin because I knew absolutely nobody there (still don't).

Perhaps you knew nobody in Dublin because you went home every evening?