Media: Bank of Ireland pull ludicrous twitter add after furious backlash

TheDoc

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Which is the truth.
Why do you think there is now a shortage of rentals?

Due to a multitude of issues, not just because a landlord is miffed because he/she can't jack prices up through the roof to grind more profit.

I don't know, appears from the various expert analysis of the situation, the recession, collapse of the construction sector and the complete slowdown/grind to a halt of building seemed to be a big enough factor?

Along with the various red tape and administrative costs, that are making building new builds not that viable for developers. Some issues, that are choking supply, before a landlord even gets involved.

jamesthepeach

TheDoc wrote: »

oh ok cool

So you just brought a complete stereotype into the thread, even though it wasn't mentioned here.

I'll agree with you there, that clearly that line of thinking is stupid as no "generation" has it easy. There are lucky parts, there were lucky people, there was lucky situations. The land lottery in the 60's(or was it 70's?) when people in the tenament slums were being relocated, and were handed plots of land on behalf of the state to own, and build on.
The driver license handout in the 70's and on and on.

Not people having it easier, just some mad situations, some weird solutions that some benefited from, some didn't. And that happens in every generation I'm sure, and will always happen, these freak solutions or incidents were people got something landed in their lap.

But as I agree with you, and no one on the thread, deemed to be "millenial" (which I believe you also brought into the thread) brought that point up, you kinda just barged in with a stereotypical viewpoint that wasn't even being discussed and started getting patronising and condescending.

And while I would agree with you in a sense of the "having it easier" is there a time you can point to in recent history, where someone earning comfortably over the average wage(not minimum, average, which is circa 34k) was entirely blocked from home ownership?

You are the stereotype I'm talking about.

And don't forget it's average household income that is the standard now, not a single income.
Since it became the norm to have more than one breadwinner in the family it is multi income families you are competing with. Therefore talking about the average wage is not relevant to the home buying or renting equation.

TheDoc

pilly wrote: »

You didn't really answer my question but how and ever.

My point is, in the 80's people were paying a much higher tax rate than they do now and bank interest was 20 times the rate.

So if your father bought a house as a factory worker then he done one of a two things:

1. Bought a council house-people look down their nose on this now.
2. Worked 70-80 hours per week and spent feck all.

So how did he have it any easier than you have? What's different?

My first rent between my boyfriend and me was 28 pound per week for a bedsit with shared bathroom and kitchen when between we were earning 134 pound. So it's all relative.

I'm not aiming this specifically at you but I've pointed out plenty of places to people priced under 350k and the answer is that they wouldn't live in such a place so it's all about snobbery for some.

Where did the poster mention his father "had it easier". Again someone in their twenties has the audacity to question something, or outline some hardships and the ASSUMPTION by those older is we want it easier, claim it was easier etc.

He says his father was a factory worker and could buy a house.

My father was a postman and my mother a secretary, bought a house, sold the house for nice profits, then bought another bigger house with cash to spare. They did this in their early 20's

I'm 29, two kids, partner, earning over the avg wage, and have a literal barrier to buying a house. I can afford it, I could get a deposit going and buy one, I could afford repayments out the swiss, but I have a literal barrier there, that says "No, you cannot buy a house"

And yes it is relative, obviously. Houses cost a nortical ****tonne more, but then I earn more now than my parents ever did at their age. But it hasn't gone perfectly in line, house prices have outgrown the trend with inflation and incomes. That is obvious and doesn't need explaining.

And yeah there is probably plenty of places out there for under 350k, but sorry, it's nothing to do with snobbery. But its fine that people will have an idea, dream, preference, whatever you want to call it about where they live. And for buying a six figure asset, I think it's ok for people not to just "settle" and be flimsy.

I'm waiting for the next rubbish line that comes out plenty "You can get a lovely three bed house in the back arse of X countyfor 130k, so you can get a house if you bothered looking and you lot need to stop being so picky and entitled"

TheDoc

jamesthepeach wrote: »

You are the stereotype I'm talking about.

And don't forget it's average household income that is the standard now, not a single income.
Since it became the norm to have more than one breadwinner in the family it is multi income families you are competing with. Therefore talking about the average wage is not relevant to the home buying or renting equation.

Ah done with you at this stage, not even entertaining it.

myshirt

myshirt wrote: »

This definitely would not have been an option for me! I'm out of home since before 17.

There is a real class divide emerging here. The kids with the best platform are those from Dublin or Cork, can live in Dublin or Cork, work in Dublin or Cork, no kids, have familial wealth, get a gift.

I'm not saying it is the only measure needed, but there seriously needs to be a revision of CAT, especially as that familial wealth emerged from direct government intervention and not personal effort. We need to give as fair a shake to those kids not from Dublin but still paying off the loans of the baby boomers, and paying rent to the baby boomers directly or indirectly (pensions), paying for their lump sums etc (public service).

This is the adult equivalent of breaking another childs toy in the play ground because you can't have one.

"if I can't have a toy then he shouldn't either"

Absolute nonsense of the highest order, you have zero entitlement to expect to get your hands on another families money. If a family can afford to help their children that's their business and they should be fully entitled to, its laughable that you think you or anyone else should benefit from a family wealth except the family.

The only change* that should be made to CAT is a reduction in the rate and an increase in thresholds, luckily the government think the same as there is talk of a reduction in the rate and further increase in the thresholds in the next budget, so basically exactly the opposite to what you would like to impose.

*totally abolishing it would of course be the ideal route.

quadrifoglio verde

awec wrote: »

What a bizarre anecdote.

How much of a chance do you think someone working as a labourer would have of buying a house in Dublin today?

You completely missed my point.
People go on about how hard people born in the 80s or 90s have it. My dad was born in the late 50s. From 13, he was labouring on building sites in England during the summer holidays, before returning to school in September. He is the only person in his family to go to university and put himself through it. No free fees, no supports. Now my generation moans about a registration fee because it's "free fees".
I was born in 92. My summers as a teenager were spent hanging around at corners, chasing women and playing Xbox.
But I've had it harder because I'm a millennial snowflake

jamesthepeach

TheDoc wrote: »

Ah done with you at this stage, not even entertaining it.

Sure I was done with you ages ago and you kept on posting replies to me even after I said there was no point trying to explain it to you, as you would only understand with age.
Glad you finally agree. So I'm happy to leave it there too.

TheDoc

Otis Yummy Spatula wrote: »

This is the adult equivalent of breaking another childs toy in the play ground because you can't have one.

"if I can't have a toy then he shouldn't either"

Absolute nonsense of the highest order, you have zero entitlement to expect to get your hands on another families money. If a family can afford to help their children that's their business and they should be fully entitled to, its laughable that you think you or anyone else should benefit from a family wealth except the family.

I read that and didn't think I understood it properly, but did the poster there literally advocate some form of change because "the kids in Dublin have it better off?"

I don't know anyone in Dublin that I know who will get land handed to them from their father/parents, and can work the land with guaranteed income and subsidies for the EU, or sell it for a few million.

This thread is mental. If anything showing the old stereotypes of us and them and they have this while I don't have that is alive and well

pilly

TheDoc wrote: »

Where did the poster mention his father "had it easier". Again someone in their twenties has the audacity to question something, or outline some hardships and the ASSUMPTION by those older is we want it easier, claim it was easier etc.

He says his father was a factory worker and could buy a house.

My father was a postman and my mother a secretary, bought a house, sold the house for nice profits, then bought another bigger house with cash to spare. They did this in their early 20's

I'm 29, two kids, partner, earning over the avg wage, and have a literal barrier to buying a house. I can afford it, I could get a deposit going and buy one, I could afford repayments out the swiss, but I have a literal barrier there, that says "No, you cannot buy a house"

And yes it is relative, obviously. Houses cost a nortical ****tonne more, but then I earn more now than my parents ever did at their age. But it hasn't gone perfectly in line, house prices have outgrown the trend with inflation and incomes. That is obvious and doesn't need explaining.

And yeah there is probably plenty of places out there for under 350k, but sorry, it's nothing to do with snobbery. But its fine that people will have an idea, dream, preference, whatever you want to call it about where they live. And for buying a six figure asset, I think it's ok for people not to just "settle" and be flimsy.

I'm waiting for the next rubbish line that comes out plenty "You can get a lovely three bed house in the back arse of X countyfor 130k, so you can get a house if you bothered looking and you lot need to stop being so picky and entitled"

And there you have it! That's the "entitled" attitude everyone is talking about.

You believe that you're "entitled" to your "idea, dream, preference", I don't.

What you're "entitled" to is somewhere you live. You want more then you work harder, get better qualified or leave the country. Those are the choices.

Galwayguy35

TheDoc wrote: »

Or maybe a section/type of people getting pretty tired of people talking down to them, giving them stupid alternatives or ridiculous advice, especially considering you sit there knowing it was a rake of moronic people/couples/families who absolutely ****ed it for everyone else.

Not sure if you maybe have experienced it, but there has been nothing more infuriating through the recession, and even now, than being a financially prudent person, earning good money, hitting barriers left right and centre, caused by the mistakes of others, who even making them, weren't appropriately penalised or punished for the damage they have caused.

So what's your solution to the problem then?

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Because they're cynically normalising the practise. Making a non ideal scenario seem normal and ideal.

While moving out and moving back in might not have been that common, it was/is fairly normal for people not to move out at all until their late 20's or early 30's by which time they are moving into their own home which they build or buy rather than renting at all.

Graham

John_Rambo wrote: »

Because they're cynically normalising the practise. Making a non ideal scenario seem normal and ideal.

Nothing wrong with normalising it as far as I can see. Pretty much every generation ever has had to make some sort of sacrifice to get on the property ladder.

My in-laws spent the guts of their first two years of married life living in a caravan while they built their own house, for most of the second year they had a baby too. It would be fairly difficult to convince them living with Mam n Dad is a huge sacrifice.

John_Rambo

Otis Yummy Spatula wrote: »

While moving out and moving back in might not have been that common, it was/is fairly normal for people not to move out at all until their late 20's or early 30's by which time they are moving into their own home which they build or buy rather than renting at all.

Did you see the twitter ad?

It details how Orla and her boyfriend moved back home with their parents in order to save for a mortgage on a house. Not how Orla never moved out of her parents house till her early thirties.

John_Rambo

Graham wrote: »

Nothing wrong with normalising it as far as I can see. Pretty much every generation ever has had to make some sort of sacrifice to get on the property ladder..

Others can see further than you, that's why there's a fuss about the ad. That's why the bank pulled the ad.

Graham wrote: »

My in-laws spent the guts of their first two years of married life living in a caravan while they built their own house, for most of the second year they had a baby too. It would be fairly difficult to convince them living with Mam n Dad is a huge sacrifice.

That's not moving back with their parents. That's moving in to a caravan on their land whilst the house was being built. That's been done since the 60's. Very common, and there's no pressure on elderly parents.

Millicent

pilly wrote: »

You didn't really answer my question but how and ever.

My point is, in the 80's people were paying a much higher tax rate than they do now and bank interest was 20 times the rate.

So if your father bought a house as a factory worker then he done one of a two things:

1. Bought a council house-people look down their nose on this now.

It was not. I don't look down on council houses. I spent a lot of my youth in one when my parents' marriage broke down. My mother still lives in one.

Point is, I and my partner are on multitudes' the earning my father was (his was a single-income household with four children) having studied extensively to achieve a higher income and succeeded in doing so, and home ownership is still farther out of our reach than it was for both our parents.

pilly wrote: »

2. Worked 70-80 hours per week and spent feck all.

I inherited my father's work ethic for good and for bad. I work days, evenings, and weekends to add to the deposit. I am rapidly approaching burn-out stage but see no other option.

I do not begrudge my father anything. He was what people are referring to when they think of that "bootstrapping" mentality. My dad was a hardworking man who did a lot of nixers but I can honestly say I work more now than he ever did but to nowhere near the effect my dad did.

pilly wrote: »

I'm not aiming this specifically at you but I've pointed out plenty of places to people priced under 350k and the answer is that they wouldn't live in such a place so it's all about snobbery for some.

For some, but there will always be snobs in any generation. Frankly, the thought of a €350K mortgage horrifies me. It's working for a lifetime to service a bank loan. Thing is, unless I want to move away from where our families live again, there's a limit on what's available within a reasonable price range.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Did you see the twitter ad?

It details how Orla and her boyfriend moved back home with their parents in order to save for a mortgage on a house. Not how Orla never moved out of her parents house till her early thirties.

I understand that the point I was making is that adults living at home is a common thing, either always living at home or more often recently moving back in. Moving back in to save is common now, despite you appearing to think otherwise. I also don't see why anyone would have an issue with it.

TheDoc

pilly wrote: »

And there you have it! That's the "entitled" attitude everyone is talking about.

You believe that you're "entitled" to your "idea, dream, preference", I don't.

What you're "entitled" to is somewhere you live. You want more then you work harder, get better qualified or leave the country. Those are the choices.

Feel free to highlight in the post where I used the word entitled, or even alluded to entitlement

Or maybe in your foaming at the mouth to throw your digs, you misread where I outlined it's perfectly fine and acceptable for someone to have ideas, dreams, goals or a vision for what they want to have. Not handed to them, but to get to, to work towards, and to have.

And it's fine for someone or people to be disheartened at being priced out of an area they grew up in, or had plans to live, and that venting isn't demanding entitlement, but just being disheartened and annoyed.

What you're "entitled" to is somewhere you live. You want more then you work harder, get better qualified or leave the country. Those are the choices.

Your attitude and pathetic portrayal of "the choices" has already pushed thousands abroad as is, where many have found "hey, holy ****, this is much better then home"

I don't believe in entitlement, or I'm entitled to anything. I believe this world won't give me anything, no one will hand me anything, and that for me to have a decent life, and provide a good life for my family, I'm responsible for that with my work and the choices I make.

Don't need a lecture thank you very much.

Carlos Orange

TheDoc wrote: »

And yeah there is probably plenty of places out there for under 350k, but sorry, it's nothing to do with snobbery. But its fine that people will have an idea, dream, preference, whatever you want to call it about where they live. And for buying a six figure asset, I think it's ok for people not to just "settle" and be flimsy.

Granted I have only bought a house once but I kinda imagine most people settle to some degree or another. People usually have bigger dreams than they can afford and need to work out where they want to compromise.

Millicent

Otis Yummy Spatula wrote: »

I understand that the point I was making is that adults living at home is a common thing, either always living at home or more often recently moving back in. Moving back in to save is common now, despite you appearing to think otherwise. I also don't see why anyone would have an issue with it.

Because when it's one of the few routes open to young professionals to save for a deposit, it's not a sign of a healthy and competitive housing market. Couples who are both employed and in the workforce for close to a decade shouldn't need to move home just to be able to save for a place.

Galwayguy35

awec wrote: »

No, I just am a bit tired of this "oh millennials have it so easy, they just expect everything" nonsense.

Millennials are the ones who will be paying off the mistakes of the previous generation yet constantly find themselves being patronised for being pissed off about it.

That's a load of bollix, I googled to see the age group of these so called Millennials and it gives their birth date as the early 1980s, I'm only about 10 years older so you can stop right now with the idea that the rest of us won't also be paying off others debt.

I borrowed responsibly in 2007, got a mortgage in an area I could afford to buy in and will pay off my own loan and don't expect anybody to do it for me.

It's not a god given right to have a house in Dublin, not everyone can afford it and if they can't then they need to look elsewhere.

TheDoc

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So what's your solution to the problem then?

To what problem? The current housing situation?

Better and brighter minds have already outlined the solutions dozens of times. I'm not going to pretend I have the answers. But what I will say is there is a large demographic that would be well served by apartment living. There being changes made to allow higher rise apartment living and the culture around that living arrangement changed to be more European and "apartment" like.

Another thread there of a landlord giving grief to a tenant for having the nerve to bring their bike into the flat, having had a previous bike stolen and bikes consistently stolen in the complex. Making as a tenant wonder, why bother living in an apartment with this crap, paying the same as I could get a house for.

Was out with a friend in those new apartment builds in Finglas a while back. €1400 a month for a 1 bed. My friend justifying it because of some heating bollox in the place and it's BER rating. Told him he was mental and he was just being desperate, stop getting attached and I'll help him and he will get something better.

In a lovely three bed house now paying €1200.

And yet, the one bedroom apartment, is EXACTLY what should be aimed at him, not a three bedroom house on his own.

So that scenario, sounds absolutely mental and needs addressing. But not the tenants fault for finding something bigger, better and more comfortable, for cheaper.

John_Rambo

Otis Yummy Spatula wrote: »

I understand that the point I was making is that adults living at home is a common thing, either always living at home or more often recently moving back in. Moving back in to save is common now, despite you appearing to think otherwise. I also don't see why anyone would have an issue with it.

If you can’t understand why people have an issue regarding the ad your head must be buried in the sand regarding the price of rent, the housing market, the price of houses, the unhealthy housing issues today and the banks cynical move to take advantage of all these issues with cheeky suggestions.

TheDoc

Otis Yummy Spatula wrote: »

I understand that the point I was making is that adults living at home is a common thing

Why is it a common thing?
Why on earth would it be common for an adult, over lets say 25 years of age, to still be living at home, without either mitigating circumstances of say third level education ,disability or a few other things.

Is it common because the living situation in our country, be it houses prices, or the wild west rental market, has driven a section of our adult society from being independent dwellers, back to their parents?

This seems to be the point of contention. No one is argueing it is happening, no one is saving it isn't a handy way to safe for a deposit living rent free, or throwing a few quid upkeep.

The issue is, is that what we deem to be an ok situation, whereby as you say, its now a common thing(I debate it being common btw, its a pure emergency/crisis situation from anytime I've heard it happen) for grown, working adults to move back home.

either always living at home or more often recently moving back in.

Might be a demographic/area/class/age thing, but where I'm from an adult living with their parents (apart from a number of mitigating scenarios) is typically called a waster, not some financially prudent individual saving for a mortgage.

Moving back in to save is common now, despite you appearing to think otherwise. I also don't see why anyone would have an issue with it.

The issue is while its common now, its common because people are reaching crisis/emergency point.

I don't really know of any situation where a couple have in their plan to move back into their parents to save, and the situation hasn't arisen from crisis, emergency or an offer provided that really was too good to turn down.

From all my friends, never have I once heared it mentioned "ah sure few years out, have the craic, bit of independence, but then gonna head back to the folks and get serious about a mortgage". Anyone I know having to move home is absolutely mortified about the experience. As a friend I've been giving the "ah your parents will take you back, your no hassle and they wont leave you hung out" as these are literal last resorts.

**** me, delighted if I could have moved home to my parents and avoid throwing tens of thousands of euro away on rent. But this assumption is up there with the social welfare parameters for adults up to X age, where the state "assume" your parents can look after you as an adult. Some parents arn't flush, some families don't get on, some parents are no longer alive, massive amount of hypothetical scenarios.

So where the ad was in bad taste, was as a stakeholder in the mortgage process, a gatekeeper, a barrier to entry, to suggest that adult couples move home to build a deposit is not just rubbish advise and somewhat detached from multiple realities, its just horrendously patronising and sounds awfully like the sort of assumptions the state makes about certain ages of adult, where its assumed mammy and daddy can take care of them financially, regardless of their tax contributions.

TheDoc

psinno wrote: »

Granted I have only bought a house once but I kinda imagine most people settle to some degree or another. People usually have bigger dreams than they can afford and need to work out where they want to compromise.

Oh of course. I'm under no illusions and to be honest did well in the rental market from being detached and unemotional when it came to viewings or houses. And because I don't particularly visit home or get on with my family, I'd no issue living wherever.

But a typical "line" that tends to come out where maybe someone is looking for a house in an area and maybe outlines some exasperation at the pricing, someone trods along with "AH YOU COULD GET A LOVELY HOUSE IN SKIBBERTANTILLY IN COUNTY YOU COULDN'T POINT IT OUT ON A MAP" and there is a real "beggers cant be choosers" attitude whereby someone in work, earning decent money, looking to invest in a six figure asset, is being told to just go half way to the other side of the country, drop six figures there, and consider themselves lucky.

Nothing wrong with people being picky or choosey, aslong as they don't feel they SHOULD have something owed to them or how the world should shift to allow them afford where they want.

I think some people do assume and understand the first buy is a step on the ladder. Ideally for most people or couples its small, its affordable, its a step on the ladder and now you have an asset, that if your lucky when your family grows your house might be worth a few quid and you can trade up. And hopefully your earnings have been growing too.

We had our children while renting, so our first foray into the market will be to house a family of four. Not ideal, but **** happens. Not crying about it. Is it gonna be tougher? Yeah sure, we'll have specific minimums. What if time goes on and kids get settled in schools and friends? All considerations.

Not crying about it, sure I might vent if the time comes and I'm like "jesus the price of houses around here" but never too far behind is a poster "oh i went on daft and found a 1 bed cottage with a missing thatched roof for 110k in waterford." "Erm thanks but I've a family of four and work in Dublin" "OH YOUR SO ENTITLED YOU NEED TO ADJUST YOUR EXPECTATIONS AND GET A GRIP"

:rolleyes:

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

Why is it a common thing?
Why on earth would it be common for an adult, over lets say 25 years of age, to still be living at home, without either mitigating circumstances of say third level education ,disability or a few other things.

Is it common because the living situation in our country, be it houses prices, or the wild west rental market, has driven a section of our adult society from being independent dwellers, back to their parents?

It was always common, bar one aunt who moved abroad my parents and their siblings on both sides lived at home until they were married and/or bought/built their own place. On both my parents sides one sibling never moved out and took on the family home moving in their spouse. Its the same all around the area, people moved out when they were mid to late 20's into their own houses or in almost every family a person stayed at home and took on the family home. This is going back decades.

TheDoc wrote: »

Might be a demographic/area/class/age thing, but where I'm from an adult living with their parents (apart from a number of mitigating scenarios) is typically called a waster, not some financially prudent individual saving for a mortgage.

.

Its very common among my group of friends to not move out until late 20's/early 30's. For example I have 3 friends who have gotten married in the last year or so who lived at home until after their honey moon and then moved on into houses they had built in two instance and into a rented place in the 3rd instance. That being said the couples were not living together in one of the family homes rather all 6 were living in their own home houses.

I know plenty of other who only moved out mid 20's including myself and the only reason I moved out was because I got a job too far from home (wereas I was commuting to college etc), had I got a job closer I would not have moved until I had built/bought my own house.

Graham

John_Rambo wrote: »

Others can see further than you, that's why there's a fuss about the ad. That's why the bank pulled the ad.

The bank pulled the ad because a few people got offended by reality.

In the grand scheme of things pulling the ad will make as much difference as sticking your fingers in your ears and signing la la la la la. If that makes anyone feel better, all power to them.

awec

Otis Yummy Spatula wrote: »

It was always common, bar one aunt who moved abroad my parents and their siblings on both sides lived at home until they were married and/or bought/built their own place. On both my parents sides one sibling never moved out and took on the family home moving in their spouse. Its the same all around the area, people moved out when they were mid to late 20's into their own houses or in almost every family a person stayed at home and took on the family home. This is going back decades.




Its very common among my group of friends to not move out until late 20's/early 30's. For example I have 3 friends who have gotten married in the last year or so who lived at home until after their honey moon and then moved on into houses they had built in two instance and into a rented place in the 3rd instance. That being said the couples were not living together in one of the family homes rather all 6 were living in their own home houses.

I know plenty of other who only moved out mid 20's including myself and the only reason I moved out was because I got a job too far from home (wereas I was commuting to college etc), had I got a job closer I would not have moved until I had built/bought my own house.

This is not normal.

TheDoc

Otis Yummy Spatula wrote: »

It was always common, bar one aunt who moved abroad my parents and their siblings on both sides lived at home until they were married and/or bought/built their own place.

Ok so not knowing your age, or your parents age, assumption we are talking about a good few decades ago. Where renting itself, was not a common thing, ergo the common thing was as you described.

Landscapes change, for easily 20 years here, I'd argue the "common thing" was children growing up then moving into rented accommodation, or squirrelling away prudently and early while at home. Where the "rent is dead money" myth comes from.

But you have described a common scenario, being what was common in your immediate family. In my family I think everyone was lucky enough to have their partners early in their lives, and in their early 20's went off together and bought.

But I think we shouldn't be taken our first hand, or family experiences and proclaiming them as the common lay of the land. There is what we know and are exposed to, and then the exposure of the general lay of the land and environment. That is what we are talking about here.

On both my parents sides one sibling never moved out and took on the family home moving in their spouse. Its the same all around the area, people moved out when they were mid to late 20's into their own houses or in almost every family a person stayed at home and took on the family home. This is going back decades.

Again your family experience. And I do know people that talk of the same, from Laois, Carlow, one lad from Offaly. I've never come across or heard of a situation like this where I'm from, North Dublin, where a sibling sticks around the house to take it over. Where I have heard it, the sibling, is an absolute waster, has the eyes on the "free house" and there is usually killings within the family when it eventually happens.

But it's definitely no what you would describe as "the norm". Hence I mentioned there is likely a demographical thing at play here.

Its very common among my group of friends to not move out until late 20's/early 30's.

I was first out of my friends, moved out at 22,23 (I think). Everyone was out by 24, either with partners or with other lads.

The group is all at 30 in or around now, group of 18 lads, no one living at home. One has drifted back and forward a bit, but considering his parents live in a mansion, I don't blame him

I know plenty of other who only moved out mid 20's including myself and the only reason I moved out was because I got a job too far from home (wereas I was commuting to college etc), had I got a job closer I would not have moved until I had built/bought my own house.

To be honest I think you have a somewhat lucky scenario, I definitely do not believe what you are describing is the baseline, or the foundation or the mean.

Is it maybe the case the county you live (I'm assuming you are not in Dublin) in has maybe the environment whereby it's relatively affordable and achievable for a financially prudent person to be in a position to buy in their early 20's? Whatever about the way house prices went in Dublin, it never appeared to be something available for me, that's for sure.

Where I joke with a friend, that if my relationship breaks down we will go buy a house where she is from, cause we could buy one tomorrow for the prices they go for. But then its also the case that the salaries paid in Dublin for example, can be drastically different to other counties, but the general cost of living and housing prices seem to reflect that lower income.

As an IT worker, I definitely have toyed with the idea of buying in certain counties and working remotely or making rare visits to the office in Dublin. Whereas when I looked into job roles similar in places like Waterford, the salary was nowhere comparable with Dublin, and whatever about the cheaper cost of living (rent/housing) I just couldn't ge my head around dropping that much on my pay packet.

TheDoc

awec wrote: »

This is not normal.

I think though that he/she might look at a situation I outline and be like "thats not normal".

Thats why I think it can be important with these type of issues they are taken as the general, the mean, the standard lay of the land, and not what we have as our immediate experiences as being common or the norm.

I think I do know the situation nox is outlining as I work with some people who have spoken to me about this situation and I'm always like "you lucky, lucky bastard"

But they are never people from Dublin , not that to be honest I expected to have the same, or get jealous or envious about it. It's somewhat something I've always been aware of and I know the trade offs and pros and cons.

Whereas if Nox comes back there telling me he/she is from anywhere on the Northside I'm going to raise serious eyebrows :pac:

John_Rambo

Graham wrote: »

The bank pulled the ad because a few people got offended by reality.

The bank pulled the ad cause they knew they'd pushed it to far. Normalising adults moving back in to their parents in their thirties was a cynical ploy. They're using the unhealthy housing situation and cynical suggestions to get business.

People called them out on it.

If reality means you have to move in to your parents house in your thirties that may be the case, it doesn't mean it's right.