Interesting article in Irish Times - ‘fizz’ may be going out of Dublin market

Cuddlesworth

woodseb wrote: »

14% of households earn >100k

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/high-earner-ireland-755580-Jan2013/

Households means combined income.

gaius c

woodseb wrote: »

14% of households earn >100k

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/high-earner-ireland-755580-Jan2013/

And as we all know, those households would "aspire" to living in Dundrum 3 bed semi's. Living the Irish dream...

Muahahaha

jay0109 wrote: »

Have you seen the average house in Beaumont. Breeze block, 70's/80's box shaped semi-d's of 1,300 sq ft max. Beaumont is not red brick heaven with large gardens.
While I think 100k is on the very low side, I would say that these type of houses should'nt be more than 150k....just over 3 times the avg Dublin wage.

Is'nt there a stat from the CSO that only something like 7% of workers in this country earn more than 100k per annum....

What you're not taking account for is that house prices these days are premised on a double income household. Asking prices reflect that, in fact I'm sure so e economist somewhere has done a study about how women entering the workforce en masse as they did in Ireland meant that house prices went up- couples had more money to spend so vendors asked for more and got it.

woodseb

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Households means combined income.

your point being?

most people buying houses are couples, partners, families

if 14% of the population are in households over 100k you can begin to understand the affordability to buy a house, you can also assume that that figure is skewed towards Dublin where a lot more than 14% would be earning over that

Cuddlesworth

woodseb wrote: »

your point being?

most people buying houses are couples, partners, families

if 14% of the population are in households over 100k you can begin to understand the affordability to buy a house, you can also assume that that figure is skewed towards Dublin where a lot more than 14% would be earning over that

Considering I was part of that survey, my house would have had a combined income of 150k at that stage putting us in that 14%. Since 4 working adults lived there, it wouldn't be indicative of the purchasing power of a couple in this country.

woodseb

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Considering I was part of that survey, my house would have had a combined income of 150k at that stage putting us in that 14%. Since 4 working adults lived there, it wouldn't be indicative of the purchasing power of a couple in this country.

but it would be indicative of the ability of your household to fund the purchase price of the property, no? Assuming you were all paying rent to a landlord who may have been servicing a mortgage

it is after all a statistic based on averages, so stating that your specific circumstances weren't indicative is neither here nor there

Marcusm

beardy_brady wrote: »

so you think the average house in dublin ( D9 is about in the middle ) should be valued at a fifth of the average house price in london ?

average house price in london is in excess of half a million euro

That's a bit of a strawman; the average house price in London is affected by international investment to a much greater extent than the Dublin or Irish property market - the "average" property price is greatly affected by this. Additionally the "averages" quoted are generally arithmetic means (often known as simple average) whereas the median would generally be a better indication of the price for which a typical property sells. (By the bye, I live in London and am selling a 2 bed flat for a multiple of what you quote as the average.)

Absent special factors (such as international investment or a bubble), there must be a link between earnings and property prices in order for stability over the medium term.

Cuddlesworth

woodseb wrote: »

but it would be indicative of the ability of your household to fund the purchase price of the property, no? Assuming you were all paying rent to a landlord who may have been servicing a mortgage

it is after all a statistic based on averages, so stating that your specific circumstances weren't indicative is neither here nor there

I'm not sure my flatmates would have been interested in investing in property with me.

Considering the large numbers of working 18-30 year olds living at home with modest incomes or in house shares with modest incomes, using household income over average wage seems irresponsible when judging the average purchasing power of a couple or single earner.

Theboinkmaster

woodseb wrote: »

14% of households earn >100k

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/high-earner-ireland-755580-Jan2013/

That's households, joint income. What's the stat for individuals?

woodseb

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

That's households, joint income. What's the stat for individuals?

read the whole article :rolleyes:

gaius c

Interesting that both the IT and Indo have run with articles like this in the last week.
Almost like somebody got the bright idea to reassure people that everything is okay and planted the articles...

Theboinkmaster

woodseb wrote: »

read the whole article :rolleyes:

I did and it doesn't answer my question so instead of the roll eyes why don't you answer the question? That article refers to 78k and 120k...

Either way my initial statement on individuals earning 100k+ would be about right - 3 to 4%, maybe lower

woodseb

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I did and it doesn't answer my question so instead of the roll eyes why don't you answer the question? That article refers to 78k and 120k...

Either way my initial statement on individuals earning 100k+ would be about right - 3 to 4%, maybe lower

So you're peeved with me for not answering your question by directing you to the article..... and yet you seem to be able to answer the question with a good degree of certainty from that data? (and even more so if you read the paper that the article refers to)

you're right that the number of individuals earning >100k is low but as I said earlier], its not really an informative statistic when assessing house prices

Santa Cruz

Would the fizz be gone because people believed the initial talk about a boom, put their negatived equity homes on the market and didn't get what they were expecting in price and decided to withdraw. Cash buyers have got their bargains and are also pulling back and of course mortgage availability is still a problem.
Having said that I am aware of two apartment development in Dublin 14 which were in mothballs but are now nearly ready to be thrown on to the rental and purchase markets. The more availabililty of properties the better control on prices

Theboinkmaster

woodseb wrote: »

you're right that the number of individuals earning >100k is low but as I said earlier], its not really an informative statistic when assessing house prices

Of course it is - house prices linked with earnings

Rother

Id say this thread will go the way of the famous "Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%’"

It will probably take a year or more as well.

steddyeddy

Well in fairness who would blame people after the last property bubble popped? Dublin prices are at an artificial high and likely to drop again, i.e. they're not worth the current asking price.

seb65

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well in fairness who would blame people after the last property bubble popped? Dublin prices are at an artificial high and likely to drop again, i.e. they're not worth the current asking price.

Agreed. 350,000+ for terraced less than 900 square feet for some? As if.

steddyeddy

seb65 wrote: »

Agreed. 350,000+ for terraced less than 900 square feet for some? As if.

They will rise again and then drop substantially. People have short memories but not that short considering the negative equity nightmare some people are facing.

Rother

I know a lot of people who were in negative equity 3 years ago.
I know very few who are in negative equity now.

makeorbrake

Rother wrote: »

I know a lot of people who were in negative equity 3 years ago.
I know very few who are in negative equity now.

You MUST be kidding me! I'm at 42% below purchase price - and I didn't buy at the very peak!

househero

steddyeddy wrote: »

They will rise again and then drop substantially.

Increasing Interest rates will reduce asking prices, increase repossessions in 2015 and make a lot of already stretched people cry & die.

1980s post recession mortgage interest rates hit 18%... The banks are luring people in now to long mortgages with low rates to recapitalize

Rother

makeorbrake wrote: »

You MUST be kidding me! I'm at 42% below purchase price - and I didn't buy at the very peak!

I must not know you then.

makeorbrake

Your post suggested that there were not many people in negative equity. There are!

Rother

My post suggested that I know a lot of people who were in negative equity who are now not, nothing more.

makeorbrake

Rother wrote: »

My post suggested that I know a lot of people who were in negative equity who are now not, nothing more.

Fine. Well, let me qualify that by saying you don't know a hell of a lot of people.

Rother

makeorbrake wrote: »

Fine. Well, let me qualify that by saying you don't know a hell of a lot of people.

Dear God. Enough of the childishness. Please.

Frank Lee Midere

Rother wrote: »

I know a lot of people who were in negative equity 3 years ago.
I know very few who are in negative equity now.

The increase has clawed back 8% of the price drop since 2008.

cerastes

Rother wrote: »

I know a lot of people who were in negative equity 3 years ago.
I know very few who are in negative equity now.

What has changed in 3 years?

Frank Lee Midere

Rother wrote: »

Dear God. Enough of the childishness. Please.

If you stopped posting anecdotes as statistics then you wouldn't get this response.

Looking at daft I see week on week increases in supply. From an admittedly low base.