New aparts for sale for 30 weeks average pay - will property go lower?

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

50% pension ?? Link please.

they accrue on 80ths, max 40 years service - 50%

gigino

bluewolf wrote: »

they accrue on 80ths, max 40 years service - 50%

For most of the public service its 40 years. For some in the public service its less eg the Gardai its 30 years + judges its 15 years.

In addition a lump sum " gratuity" equivalent to 18 months tax free finishing salary is payable. http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/

Yahew wrote: »

The average public sector pay is way higher than the average pay.

Statistics may be less reliable on private sector pay although of course almost everyone would agree with you. Start a thread on that if u want. This thread is more about property price in terms of spending power.

Degsy

neil_hosey wrote: »

Wait a minute... lol.. this is the PROBLEM with the Public sector. Just because someone works 40 years emptying ****ing bins for the dept of finance, doesnt mean he should be getting salary bumps every year. Your salary should be based on the difficulty of your job, but you'll find admins in universities earning 50K a year to answer phone calls and send faxes.. this is why the PS is so overinflated.

By your logic, someone answering a telephone in a public sector call centre should get regular bumps up and up and up, until they are earning what?? 100 grand a year??!?!?! you are off your rocker, get back to the celtic tiger!

What are ya talking about?

ALL jobs have a salary cap...you cant just keep earning indefinately.
If the top of your grade is 30k then thats what you'll retire on unless there is an agreement to get you a long service increment.

and you say

Your salary should be based on the difficulty of your job,

...well then guards and ambulence men as well as road sweepers should be earning 100k a year and IT wasters should get nothing at all.

average_runner

Have to say the waterford apartment would of been a good buy.
Rent it out to students etc, covers mortage easily and sell in 20 years for a profit

neil_hosey

Degsy wrote: »

What are ya talking about?

ALL jobs have a salary cap...you cant just keep earning indefinately.
If the top of your grade is 30k then thats what you'll retire on unless there is an agreement to get you a long service increment.

and you say ...well then guards and ambulence men as well as road sweepers should be earning 100k a year and IT wasters should get nothing at all.

oh jesus..
LOL.. you are contradicting yourself now.. you said

Degsy wrote:

So you're saying they should work forever on the same pay,yeah?

Good luck with getting anybody to apply for any job anywhere where you're on the same money for 40 years.

and i said YES! you shouldnt get increments for low skilled jobs... there should be more realistic salary caps (read my previous post!), JUST LIKE THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

You seem to have some problem with IT people.. i couldnt care less what thats all about Theres only 2 conclusions i can come to, you are too thick to comprehend what is involved in IT, or you dont work, and dont need to use software written specifically for a company.

Degsy

neil_hosey wrote: »

and i said YES! you shouldnt get increments for low skilled jobs

How do you define "low skilled" jobs?

Somebody should be on the same money forever because they are "low skilled"??

How can they ever be expected to raise a family for example?

K-9

gigino wrote: »

Start a thread on that if u want. This thread is more about property price in terms of spending power.

Nope, it's another thread to satisfy your OCD complex about Public Servants, just dressed up as about property prices.

Red_Wake

Degsy wrote: »

How do you define "low skilled" jobs?

Somebody should be on the same money forever because they are "low skilled"??

How can they ever be expected to raise a family for example?

By upskilling maybe?:eek:

neil_hosey

Degsy wrote: »

How do you define "low skilled" jobs?

Somebody should be on the same money forever because they are "low skilled"??

How can they ever be expected to raise a family for example?

are you serious?

Believe it or not, the amount of money you earn is based on how much skill/effort/difficulty (amongst other things) is in your job... i thought this was common knowledge, clearly not. This unfortunately doesnt always transfer to the public sector.

Do you honestly believe for example an admin clerk in a hospital with little relevant qualifications, "little skills needed" other than maybe use a computer, get paid the same as a doctor?


Unless.... you are suggesting everyone gets paid the same because thats "fair" and maybe everyone wants to raise a family?? ... thats pretty much communism.

Degsy

neil_hosey wrote: »

are you serious?

Believe it or not, the amount of money you earn is based on how much skill/effort/difficulty (amongst other things) is in your job... i thought this was common knowledge, clearly not. This unfortunately doesnt always transfer to the public sector.

Do you honestly believe for example an admin clerk in a hospital with little relevant qualifications, "little skills needed" other than maybe use a computer, get paid the same as a doctor?


Unless.... you are suggesting everyone gets paid the same because thats "fair" and maybe everyone wants to raise a family?? ... thats pretty much communism.

Pay within the Public service represents experience,skills and other relevant factors..you seem to think that a lowly office clerk makes upwards of 50k per year through a series of neverending increments.

As i've lready explained there is a cap on all pay scales depending on the particular job or qualification...so no,an "admin clerk" doesnt get paid the same as a doctor.

I think only a complete fool would think otherwise.

And any job i've ever seen advertised in any sector will have a pay scale which will reperesent anumber of increments rising to the top of that scale..i cant really see what your problem is.

flanders1979

Stinks of jealousy around here. There were plenty of low paid jobs in the public sector available 10 years ago. Nobody wanted them because usually they felt they could do better. Turns out they could't. I was a clerical officer for a few years but I left because I grew tired of Dublin and could never afford to settle down there. I would probably be earning more if I had stayed in that mind numbing job but I also prefer some manual labour.
Back on topic, house prices down home are very affordable but its hard to find one that wasn't built by incapable fools, built to rent, draughty as fcuk, without a right angle in the whole building. Just like the place we are renting.

gigino

Degsy wrote: »

Pay within the Public service represents experience,skills and other relevant factors..

30 weeks average public service gross pay represents the price of that new 2-bedroom apartment in Longford. Do you think the economy can sustain this discrepancy ? A generation or 2 ago, people would never have been able to buy a new 2-bedrom property with the equivalent of only 30 weeks gross pay.

tigger123

gigino wrote: »

30 weeks average public service gross pay represents the price of that new 2-bedroom apartment in Longford. Do you think the economy can sustain this discrepancy ? A generation or 2 ago, people would never have been able to buy a new 2-bedrom property with the equivalent of only 30 weeks gross pay.

This whole thread is a joke, if you want to talk about Public Sector wages and payscales, you should at least be upfront about it and start a thread with that in the title.

MagicSean

tigger123 wrote: »

This whole thread is a joke, if you want to talk about Public Sector wages and payscales, you should at least be upfront about it and start a thread with that in the title.

He's not allowed do those any more.

Paulzx

MagicSean wrote: »

He's not allowed do those any more.

It isn't feckin stopping him though is it?

Benny_Cake

gigino wrote: »

30 weeks average public service gross pay represents the price of that new 2-bedroom apartment in Longford. Do you think the economy can sustain this discrepancy ? A generation or 2 ago, people would never have been able to buy a new 2-bedrom property with the equivalent of only 30 weeks gross pay.

It doesn't matter what the price is if no one wants to live in it. There countless ghost estates around Longford - I suspect this is one. So you could knock a further 50% off the price and I'd still think you'd find better ways of spending your money. Maybe Sean Quinn might be interested.

Incidently, why don't you just come clean and admit this is about public service pay, isn't it?

Degsy

gigino wrote: »

30 weeks average public service gross pay represents the price of that new 2-bedroom apartment in Longford. Do you think the economy can sustain this discrepancy ?.

Somebody in the private sector on 200k per anum could afford to buy 5 of those places per year every year!:eek:

gigino wrote: »

A generation or 2 ago, people would never have been able to buy a new 2-bedrom property with the equivalent of only 30 weeks gross pay.

A generation or two ago nobody in this country bought two bed apartments at all because they didnt exist.

Anyway..this thread is a load of unhinged garbage that flits between property prices and public Sector wages..i cant figure out if you're trolling or you have a screw loose.

tayto lover

neil_hosey wrote: »

oh jesus..
LOL.. you are contradicting yourself now.. you said



and i said YES! you shouldnt get increments for low skilled jobs... there should be more realistic salary caps (read my previous post!), JUST LIKE THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

You seem to have some problem with IT people.. i couldnt care less what thats all about Theres only 2 conclusions i can come to, you are too thick to comprehend what is involved in IT, or you dont work, and dont need to use software written specifically for a company.

I think you should have read the whole thread and then you might realise what he is on about.

MagicSean

gigino wrote: »

30 weeks average public service gross pay represents the price of that new 2-bedroom apartment in Longford. Do you think the economy can sustain this discrepancy ? A generation or 2 ago, people would never have been able to buy a new 2-bedrom property with the equivalent of only 30 weeks gross pay.

But seeing as how the economy takes a large portion of public sector back in the way of taxes and levies (about 40%) is it not a bit redundant to keep using that copy and paste phrase?

Degsy

MagicSean wrote: »

But seeing as how the economy takes a large portion of public sector back in the way of taxes and levies (about 40%) is it not a bit redundant to keep using that copy and paste phrase?

As well as the fact that the public sector employees spend thier wages in private sector busineses..he's talking bollocks on stilts so its pointless trying to argue.

desertcircus

I would have thought that two-bed apartments in Longford going for a few months' average public sector salary was an indictment of the decision to build two-bed apartments in Longford.

gigino

Degsy wrote: »

A generation or two ago nobody in this country bought two bed apartments at all because they didnt exist.

Not the point. The point I made was "
A generation or 2 ago, people would never have been able to buy a new 2-bedrom property with the equivalent of only 30 weeks gross pay."

There were many 2 bedroom properties a generation or 2 ago ( 2 up, 2 down terraced houses ). You can say they were £ 1680 or £ 5500 or whatever, but the only way to put that in context is to compare it to earnings at the time. They were more expensive in real terms than 30 weeks gross pay.

gigino

desertcircus wrote: »

I would have thought that two-bed apartments in Longford going for a few months' average public sector salary was an indictment of the decision to build two-bed apartments in Longford.

decentralisation was part of government policy and in fact the government encouraged the building of apartments in certain areas like that through section 23 tax incentives. At some stage there was demand for them, if u go back 4 or 5 years some people were paying relatively big money for places like that.

Toby Take a Bow

gigino wrote: »

Not the point. The point I made was "
A generation or 2 ago, people would never have been able to buy a new 2-bedrom property with the equivalent of only 30 weeks gross pay."

There were many 2 bedroom properties a generation or 2 ago ( 2 up, 2 down terraced houses ). You can say they were £ 1680 or £ 5500 or whatever, but the only way to put that in context is to compare it to earnings at the time. They were more expensive in real terms than 30 weeks gross pay.

Not if the the examples that you provided didn't exist back then. You're not (necessarily) comparing like-for-like, definitely not when you consider that people have posted links as to why, exactly, some of these apartments are selling for such low prices.

gigino

Property was valued at maybe 5 or 10 years salary in the past. I know the newly built apartment would be better than 2 bedroom terraced houses a generation or 2 ago - better windows, fitted kitchen, bathroom etc.

MagicSean

gigino wrote: »

Property was valued at maybe 5 or 10 years salary in the past. I know the newly built apartment would be better than 2 bedroom terraced houses a generation or 2 ago - better windows, fitted kitchen, bathroom etc.

Everything is better than it was a generation ago. What's your point?

Benny_Cake

gigino wrote: »

Property was valued at maybe 5 or 10 years salary in the past. I know the newly built apartment would be better than 2 bedroom terraced houses a generation or 2 ago - better windows, fitted kitchen, bathroom etc.

I'd very much doubt that, the terraced houses put up by councils back in the 30s,40s and 50s may have been small, but they were well built and solid - and weren't run by fly-by-night management companies.

tayto lover

MagicSean wrote: »

Everything is better than it was a generation ago. What's your point?

His point is that he thinks you are better off than he is and he doesn't like it. I hope he gets a job soon.

gigino

MagicSean wrote: »

Everything is better than it was a generation ago.

If everything is better now than 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago perhaps its time your wages came down to what they were say 10 years ago ?

gigino

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd very much doubt that, the terraced houses put up by councils back in the 30s,40s and 50s may have been small, but they were well built and solid.

so modern building regulation have declined in quality - who enforces these ?

MagicSean

gigino wrote: »

If everything is better now than 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago perhaps its time your wages came down to what they were say 10 years ago ?

What? There is a complete absence of logic there

1 - Everything is better than it was 10 years ago
2 - ???????
3 - wages should be reduced

tigger123

gigino wrote: »

If everything is better now than 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago perhaps its time your wages came down to what they were say 10 years ago ?

So, as the standard of living increases every 5 years, peoples wages should take a step back to what they were 10 years ago, at an undetermined point in time?

Stumped by this ... :rolleyes: ... it doesnt even make sense.

CricketDude

I have my own house, mortgage paid, good salary and dont really go in for complaining how much someone else earns. So im not interested in either public sector wages or property. Sure the people i know who work in the PS earn less than any of my friends working in the private sector anyway.

But I do remember living in the UK in the late 80's when property prices crashed and everyone thought it was the end of the world (as usual during a recession) and property prices were going only one way, down. And they were going to take a hundred years to be worth buying again.
20 years after that, the ones who got bargains, or the idiots as they were called then, were cleaning up. Inflation forgives everything.

Id be tempted to buy a few houses or apartments myself since my savings are not doing a whole lot where they are anyway, but for the ever increasing taxes on property. Who knows how much tax you'll be paying in a few years, so why leave yourself open to that.

desertcircus

gigino wrote: »

decentralisation was part of government policy and in fact the government encouraged the building of apartments in certain areas like that through section 23 tax incentives. At some stage there was demand for them, if u go back 4 or 5 years some people were paying relatively big money for places like that.

And clearly a situation that encouraged the building of apartment blocks in Longford - not exactly a place known for its Hong-Kong-style overcrowding - is the problem. The fact that you can buy a two-bed apartment in Longford for thirty weeks' average public sector salary, or for however many weeks' average private sector salary, tells you nothing about the wisdom of paying those salaries and everything about the wisdom of thinking there's sustainable demand for apartment living in a rural county with a population you could fit into the Aviva Stadium with over ten thousand seats left over.

desertcircus

CricketDude wrote: »

I have my own house, mortgage paid, good salary and dont really go in for complaining how much someone else earns. So im not interested in either public sector wages or property. Sure the people i know who work in the PS earn less than any of my friends working in the private sector anyway.

But I do remember living in the UK in the late 80's when property prices crashed and everyone thought it was the end of the world (as usual during a recession) and property prices were going only one way, down. And they were going to take a hundred years to be worth buying again.
20 years after that, the ones who got bargains, or the idiots as they were called then, were cleaning up. Inflation forgives everything.

Id be tempted to buy a few houses or apartments myself since my savings are not doing a whole lot where they are anyway, but for the ever increasing taxes on property. Who knows how much tax you'll be paying in a few years, so why leave yourself open to that.

Except Britain wasn't suffering record levels of emigration, didn't have a 15% unemployment rate, hadn't had to call in the IMF, hadn't had a building sector twice as big as it should have been, didn't have public spending dependent on stamp duty, didn't effectively burn its banks to the ground, didn't spend a year's tax income on trying and failing to keep a worthless bank alive, and didn't have a housing oversupply big enough to cover a decade of new families. Take a look at Japan, where it took two decades for house prices simply to stop falling, never mind go back up again.

heate

desertcircus wrote: »

CricketDude wrote: »

I have my own house, mortgage paid, good salary and dont really go in for complaining how much someone else earns. So im not interested in either public sector wages or property. Sure the people i know who work in the PS earn less than any of my friends working in the private sector anyway.

But I do remember living in the UK in the late 80's when property prices crashed and everyone thought it was the end of the world (as usual during a recession) and property prices were going only one way, down. And they were going to take a hundred years to be worth buying again.
20 years after that, the ones who got bargains, or the idiots as they were called then, were cleaning up. Inflation forgives everything.

Id be tempted to buy a few houses or apartments myself since my savings are not doing a whole lot where they are anyway, but for the ever increasing taxes on property. Who knows how much tax you'll be paying in a few years, so why leave yourself open to that.

Except Britain wasn't suffering record levels of emigration, didn't have a 15% unemployment rate, hadn't had to call in the IMF, hadn't had a building sector twice as big as it should have been, didn't have public spending dependent on stamp duty, didn't effectively burn its banks to the ground, didn't spend a year's tax income on trying and failing to keep a worthless bank alive, and didn't have a housing oversupply big enough to cover a decade of new families. Take a look at Japan, where it took two decades for house prices simply to stop falling, never mind go back up again.

Japan's lost generation is remarkably similar to Ireland's - and we are doing nothing to avoid it!
People may disagree but should one investigate you will be mildly bemused by the similarities and monkey business that went on!
I heard somewhere that 15sqm apartments in Tokyo were nearing $1mUSD
The smart ballsy people will not ever be making a 'killing' in bloody Longford

gigino

desertcircus wrote: »

Except Britain wasn't suffering record levels of emigration, didn't have a 15% unemployment rate, hadn't had to call in the IMF, hadn't had a building sector twice as big as it should have been, didn't have public spending dependent on stamp duty, didn't effectively burn its banks to the ground, didn't spend a year's tax income on trying and failing to keep a worthless bank alive, and didn't have a housing oversupply big enough to cover a decade of new families.

But here high public spending is supporting the economy : our average public sector wage is €48,000 - in the UK its only £21,500 stg. Ask any auctioneer ; there are few people buying property now, but lets thank the university lecturers, hospital consultants , higher paid public servants etc who are. Those investors are supporting property prices, bless 'em. Its a great argument for not abolishing the 18 month of finish salary tax free "gratuity" in addition to the 50% of finishing salary pension.

gigino

heate wrote: »

The smart ballsy people will not ever be making a 'killing' in bloody Longford

Time will tell, but at least someone can have a cheap place to live if they want. Imagine if you were a young Guard or teacher or office worker and moved to the area, would'nt an apartment do grand.

tayto lover

gigino wrote: »

Time will tell, but at least someone can have a cheap place to live if they want. Imagine if you were a young Guard or teacher or office worker and moved to the area, would'nt an apartment do grand.

Jealousy, pure jealousy. Were you refused?
If things were so easy in the Public Sector the whole country would have joined. Unless refused of course.

dxhound2005

CricketDude wrote: »

I have my own house, mortgage paid, good salary and dont really go in for complaining how much someone else earns. So im not interested in either public sector wages or property. Sure the people i know who work in the PS earn less than any of my friends working in the private sector anyway.

But I do remember living in the UK in the late 80's when property prices crashed and everyone thought it was the end of the world (as usual during a recession) and property prices were going only one way, down. And they were going to take a hundred years to be worth buying again.
20 years after that, the ones who got bargains, or the idiots as they were called then, were cleaning up. Inflation forgives everything.

Id be tempted to buy a few houses or apartments myself since my savings are not doing a whole lot where they are anyway, but for the ever increasing taxes on property. Who knows how much tax you'll be paying in a few years, so why leave yourself open to that.

Council tax was introduced in England in 1993 and the current level is £1200 on average per dwelling. In the North domestic rates are around £800. I would think any property tax here could be around €800 to €1500 for a 3 bed semi in a few years, it certainly couldn't be 10's of thousands. So if you want to factor that into your long term calculations you can thank me when your speculation in the property market pays off.

MagicSean

gigino wrote: »

Time will tell, but at least someone can have a cheap place to live if they want. Imagine if you were a young Guard or teacher or office worker and moved to the area, would'nt an apartment do grand.

Perhaps you should look at the starting salaries for young guards and teachers. You might also consider the fact that young guards have no say in where they are posted. A house in Longford is not much good if you are sent to Limerick.

gigino

I'm not jealous in the slightest, old chap. I merely said "Imagine if you were a young Guard or teacher or office worker and moved to the area, would'nt an apartment do grand"

gigino

MagicSean wrote: »

A house in Longford is not much good if you are sent to Limerick.

but its very good if u are sent to longford

tayto lover

gigino wrote: »

but its very good if u are sent to longford

Can they ball be sent to Longford?

gigino

tayto lover wrote: »

Can they ball be sent to Longford?

thats why in the OP I gave links to cheap properties in other locations from Donegal to Laois to Louth to Waterford city.....

Paulzx

gigino wrote: »

. Ask any auctioneer ; there are few people buying property now, but lets thank the university lecturers, hospital consultants , higher paid public servants etc who are. Those investors are supporting property prices, bless 'em

This is the type of hearsay crap that got you banned from Irish Economy. There are no breakdowns of who or what professions are buying property.

"Ask an auctioneer" is not a valid arguement.

I know this is After Hours where serious discussion is not prevalent but you are being humored here in spouting your drivel that got you banned elsewhere.

Toby Take a Bow

gigino wrote: »

Property was valued at maybe 5 or 10 years salary in the past. I know the newly built apartment would be better than 2 bedroom terraced houses a generation or 2 ago - better windows, fitted kitchen, bathroom etc.

That's ridiculous. For the high-end apartments, you'd get these benefits. For the low-end (which are the examples you quoted to 'prove' your 'point') apartments, there really is no comparison. I've lived in new 90s-era apartments, I've lived in terraced housing from the 20s and I've lived in Georgian basement flats. The best-built, without question, was the terraced 1920s housing. Followed by the Georgian basement. And coming a distant third was the crappy 90s apartment, with rising damp, cardboard-esque walls, sunlight for 3 hours of the day, absolutely tiny unliveable spacing.

gigino

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

And coming a distant third was the crappy 90s apartment, with rising damp, cardboard-esque walls, sunlight for 3 hours of the day, absolutely tiny unliveable spacing.

Interesting perspective. You think/ in your experience - that even with the benefit of modern technology, a FAS training service which cost the state a billion a year, modern materials, modern building regulations etc ...even with all of this our modern dwellings are inferior to what was designed + built under British regulations and rule ?

desertcircus

gigino wrote: »

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

And coming a distant third was the crappy 90s apartment, with rising damp, cardboard-esque walls, sunlight for 3 hours of the day, absolutely tiny unliveable spacing.

Interesting perspective. You think/ in your experience - that even with the benefit of modern technology, a FAS training service which cost the state a billion a year, modern materials, modern building regulations etc ...even with all of this our modern dwellings are inferior to what was designed + built under British regulations and rule ?

Two words: Priory Hall.

Toby Take a Bow

gigino wrote: »

Interesting perspective. You think/ in your experience - that even with the benefit of modern technology, a FAS training service which cost the state a billion a year, modern materials, modern building regulations etc ...even with all of this our modern dwellings are inferior to what was designed + built under British regulations and rule ?

1920s: so not under British rule. And yes, it would seem that when comparing low-end apartments from the 90s to buildings built previously, the standard previously far outstrips the new. However, it's not really comparing like-with-like: the shoddy buildings of the past, I presume, have disappeared or have been knocked down. Definitely the case with the tenement buildings from British rule and the worst of the flat complexes since independence.

Things like modern technology, modern materials, modern regulations don't necessarily matter if they're not applied to the highest standard. In the past 20/30 years the emphasis was on cheap materials in order to maximise profit, whilst regulations were seemingly ignored. I'm not sure why you put the FAS thing in your post, bar, of course, getting a dig at a state body. How much specifically was put into FAS into courses specifically dealing with construction, and how many people from this course directly affected the property boom?