Opinions on when the next property crash may happen

jesus_thats_gre

Cyrus wrote: »

i agree with a lot of this, i think rather than a crash we will see a settling of prices with some areas decreasing a little and some staying stagnant.

i dont see the price of large family homes in south dublin for example losing anything on current prices, and they will continue to rise.

if trump gets his 15% through it will have an impact here for sure, but we are still the best bet for an EMEA base for US co's and that wont change.

For the interest of impartiality, what type of property, and where, do you happen to own?

myshirt

How many people think this was engineered in a way as part of a recovery for all

Step 1. Re-inflate housing prices
Step 2. Bring in investment from Reits and developers
Step 3 Negative equity recovers, and the great unwashed meet new reality of lower home ownership, higher rent, but have a house and have a job (basically working to put money in another man's pocket)

jesus_thats_gre

Anongeneric wrote: »

RFID technology has already done away with huge numbers of staff by negating the need for warehouse staff to scan products into stock, Walmart are the biggest example of this and reckon it will save them about 6billion a year worldwide.That's pretty much 6 billion saved from staffing costs.

Tesco et al have less tellers because we can scan and pay on our own

To what degree has unemployment in the developed/first world worsened by all of this automation?

You would wonder what folks on message boards thought would happen when the; wheel was invented, or when the motor car was invented, or when the the computer was invented.

Things change and things will always change. New industries tend to pop up to fill the space and the standard of living appears to keep improving slowly.

I am not ignorant enough to suggest that things won't change but I am not foreseeing an impending apocalypse of unemployment.

Anongeneric

Apologies, that wasn't correct, $80,000 is the average for Australia

In Victoria,(the territory Melbourne is in), it's $75,634

https://www.livingin-australia.com/salaries-australia/

Samuel T. Cogley

Anongeneric wrote: »

Apologies, that wasn't correct, $80,000 is the average for Australia

In Victoria,(the territory Melbourne is in), it's $75,634

https://www.livingin-australia.com/salaries-australia/

Okay so c. €52K my figures where in Euro - I've also conflated median house prices with median 4 beds in Dublin. I'd have to review the figures but it looks like the multipliers are very similar.

There is no doubt the prices are not desirable - but does it mean there will be a crash - how does Dublin compare to a few of the others on that list?

Genuine questions I'm not sure I can be bothered to do the research on! :pac:

Anongeneric

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

To what degree has unemployment in the developed/first world worsened by all of this automation?

You would wonder what folks on message boards thought would happen when the; wheel was invented, or when the motor car was invented, or when the the computer was invented.

Things change and things will always change. New industries tend to pop up to fill the space and the standard of living appears to keep improving slowly.

I am not ignorant enough to suggest that things won't change but I am not foreseeing an impending apocalypse of unemployment.

The experts in tech, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel etc. all say the same thing about this technological revolution, namely, that this time it's different.
With previous technological revolution they created more jobs which could replace the ones they were destroying, in this iteration all the big tech boys are saying that they won't create anywhere near enough jobs to relace what they are destroying.

Anongeneric

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Okay so c. €52K my figures where in Euro - I've also conflated median house prices with median 4 beds in Dublin. I'd have to review the figures but it looks like the multipliers are very similar.

There is no doubt the prices are not desirable - but does it mean there will be a crash - how does Dublin compare to a few of the others on that list?

Genuine questions I'm not sure I can be bothered to do the research on! :pac:

I'm kind of 'of the same mind' as you re doing the research!

Samuel T. Cogley

Anongeneric wrote: »

The experts in tech, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel etc. all say the same thing about this technological revolution, namely, that this time it's different.
With previous technological revolution they created more jobs which could replace the ones they were destroying, in this iteration all the big tech boys are saying that they won't create anywhere near enough jobs to relace what they are destroying.

And if that's the case, various bodies will stop and delay it from the legislature to unions.

weed_killer

i think a lot of people underestimate just how high a wage city dublin is , its way above the european average , while houses have gotten expensive this past nine months or so , house prices in dublin are not that expensive relative to other capitals with the kind of earnings potential which exists

galway city is absurdly expensive for what it is , its too small for anyone to take notice but bar two major employers i can think of , the wages cannot be that high

Lumen

Graham wrote: »

A couple of quotes from a few years back is hardly government policy.

Every time I've heard Noonan talking about property prices he has stated that he wants them higher.

Can you find a single quote from Noonan stating the opposite, e.g. that he thinks reasonably priced housing is a good thing?

Graham wrote: »

The idea that there is any sort of pro-landlord bias in current government policy is frankly absurd in the face of the recent legislation.

OK, well Noonan has championed the professionalisation of landlording and executed policy to support tax avoidance by foreign funds, so yes, you could argue that he's anti-small-landlord. He himself owns only diversified investment funds e.g. ETFs.

Graham

Lumen wrote: »

OK, well Noonan has championed the professionalisation of landlording and executed policy to support tax avoidance by foreign funds, so yes, you could argue that he's anti-small-landlord. He himself owns only diversified investment funds e.g. ETFs.

So why would anyone think having a few small-time landlords in the Dail has any relevance?

I'm not entirely sure a single TD holding a few shares in ETFs demonstrates anything either to be honest.

I guess either 'facts' make great soundbites for anyone not willing to question their relevence.

Lumen

Graham wrote: »

I guess either 'facts' make great soundbites for anyone not willing to question their relevence.

What 'facts' are you bringing to this debate? I see you neatly dodged my request for evidence of policy countering rising house prices.

Graham

Lumen wrote: »

What 'facts' are you bringing to this debate? I see you neatly dodged my request for evidence of policy countering rising house prices.

I didn't suggest there was such a policy.

Yourself isit

Graham wrote: »

I'm not sure there's anything at all sensible about concluding there's some sort of secret government policy/plot/conspiracy but there you go.

Feel free to correct me when you find actual evidence of an actual government policy.

NAMA. CGT exemption. Help to buy. Bullying the central bank on deposits. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Graham

Yourself isit wrote: »

NAMA. CGT exemption. Help to buy. Bullying the central bank on deposits. Etc. Etc. Etc.

NAMAs remit included getting the best return from the tax payer from distressed assets.

CGT exemptions were put in place when nobody would buy the distressed assets.

House prices are increasing for the following fairly simple fundamental economic reasons:

1) supply is constrained.

That's it. No secret handshakes. No unwritten policies. No underground consortium of part-time small-scale TD landlords and nothing to do with a bloke that got elected who happens to own a few shares.

Yourself isit

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

To what degree has unemployment in the developed/first world worsened by all of this automation?

You would wonder what folks on message boards thought would happen when the; wheel was invented, or when the motor car was invented, or when the the computer was invented.

Things change and things will always change. New industries tend to pop up to fill the space and the standard of living appears to keep improving slowly.

I am not ignorant enough to suggest that things won't change but I am not foreseeing an impending apocalypse of unemployment.

As somebody said to me - the new automation might not replicate how the industrial revolution and previous automation affected humans but how it affected working animals.

Graham

Yourself isit wrote: »

Let's use the term policy.

Let's not.

I guess it's hard for many people to understand that housing supply isn't something that can be switched on/off at a whim.

Likewise, actions to influence property prices MUST be taken over a relatively long period otherwise the economic shockwaves would be a disaster for the entire country.

Small adjustments are what is needed and contrary to my expectations (and disagreement in some areas) small adjustments are what appear to be being delivered.

Yourself isit

Graham wrote: »

Let's not.

I guess it's hard for many people to understand that housing supply isn't something that can be switched on/off at a whim.

Likewise, actions to influence property prices MUST be taken over a relatively long period otherwise the economic shockwaves would be a disaster for the entire country.

Small adjustments are what is needed and contrary to my expectations (and disagreement in some areas) small adjustments are what appear to be being delivered.

That doesn't really deal with the question of the actual policy. A cynic might argue that you've moved the goalposts and are not arguing against the policy or its existance but whether the policy is good or not..

It's not true however that the government is in fact taking action on house prices "over the long term". There was no "long term" in the decision to tax the taxpayer to subsidise first time buyers, an action which has had immediate effect on house prices which were stagnating last year and hasn't benefited the first time buyer at all, since the simplest of economic theory would suggest (and economic practice confirm) that in times of limited supply a subsidy to the demand side can only increase prices.

Thargor

As someone over on the Pin pointed out, this place:

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/241-the-waterside-ringsend-road-dubln-4/3975452

for 675k is very similar and just across the canal from Hanover Quay where this ladies real estate adventures brought us so much entertainment over the years.



Except Alison only paid 525k in 2008...

Tigger

Thargor wrote: »

As someone over on the Pin pointed out, this place:

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/241-the-waterside-ringsend-road-dubln-4/3975452

for 675k is very similar and just across the canal from Hanover Quay where this ladies real estate adventures brought us so much entertainment over the years.



Except Alison only paid 525k in 2008...

that one has a 100m2 terrace?

kaymin

Yourself isit wrote: »

NAMA. CGT exemption. Help to buy. Bullying the central bank on deposits. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Add to that the section 110s used by ultra rich /private equity companies and the special tax treatment given to REITs that the small landlords can't avail of. What this translates to is tax free income / profits for these vultures that mostly leaves the country.

The rich are screwing over the populace with land hoarding; property hoarding, sky high rents, no development to ease the pressure (and when there is development they keep it for renting out - where else in the world do you get such high rental yields!) - <snip>

Idbatterim

Graham wrote: »

Yourself isit wrote: »

NAMA. CGT exemption. Help to buy. Bullying the central bank on deposits. Etc. Etc. Etc.

NAMAs remit included getting the best return from the tax payer from distressed assets.

CGT exemptions were put in place when nobody would buy the distressed assets.

House prices are increasing for the following fairly simple fundamental economic reasons:

1) supply is constrained.

That's it. No secret handshakes. No unwritten policies. No underground consortium of part-time small-scale TD landlords and nothing to do with a bloke that got elected who happens to own a few shares.

If that was namas remit, they failed!

Ok. Here's a question, why can no single wage earner afford to live or buy in Dublin unless they are on a serious high salary? Those snakes and <snip> is one of them, want prices to rise, so try developers start building residential en masseagain. Because they don't wAnt to address construction costs or cut their outrageous vat take. No just let the chimps drown themselves in debt for the ****e you get in Dublin for top dollar!

The high prices suit the vested interests down to the ground <snip>

Idbatterim

Thargor wrote: »

As someone over on the Pin pointed out, this place:

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/241-the-waterside-ringsend-road-dubln-4/3975452

for 675k is very similar and just across the canal from Hanover Quay where this ladies real estate adventures brought us so much entertainment over the years.



Except Alison only paid 525k in 2008...

I've still got this magic beans to sell Alison ...

Idbatterim

100%. Take a look at this documentary. It's excellent, your comments hit the nail on the head ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XL3n59wC8kk

Villa05

kaymin wrote:

Government policy /actions are very pertinent to any forecast of when the next property crash might arise

Very much agreed. Government policy has been instrumental in all the negative aspects of the property market for the last 20 years. Maybe it deserves a separate thread

trobbin

There's a ton of old threads on boards from 2006 with loads of people talking about bidding wars. The reoccurring theme in all of the threads are "housing shortage" "lack of supply"

Never underestimate the stupidity of people.

Villa05

Graham wrote:

House prices are increasing for the following fairly simple fundamental economic reasons:

Graham wrote:

1) supply is constrained.

I think the argument being made is that supply is constrained by government policy

1 Property tax as opposed to a site value tax

2 extortionate interest rates charged by Government owned banks to developers to build new stock

3 Costly oversight regulations increasing unit build cost when a more effective system is working well in Northern Ireland at a fraction of the cost

4. Nama witholding/drip feeding houses and sites to the market

5. Banks failure to deal with the arrears issues

6 banning of bedsits on the rental market


On the demand side

1 Government have made renting un viable for both renter and small landlords

2 help to buy schemes with insufficient stock to buy

Anongeneric

Folks can someone post a link as to who this is?
I've lived abroad a fair bit and have no idea who shse is

Cheers

Thargor wrote: »

As someone over on the Pin pointed out, this place:

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/241-the-waterside-ringsend-road-dubln-4/3975452

for 675k is very similar and just across the canal from Hanover Quay where this ladies real estate adventures brought us so much entertainment over the years.



Except Alison only paid 525k in 2008...

trobbin

Anongeneric wrote: »

Folks can someone post a link as to who this is?
I've lived abroad a fair bit and have no idea who shse is

Cheers

I also don't know who she is. However, I think it's just another speculator turned victim. She's basically the reason you pay USC on wages.

The original post is from property pin. They're just saying the stupid people are getting credit again, and they're taking it. But most worryingly, they like people before them, don't think they're stupid.

They're gonna make a ton of cash

mrslancaster

Anongeneric wrote: »

Folks can someone post a link as to who this is?
I've lived abroad a fair bit and have no idea who shse is

Cheers

+ 1