Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Rents to rise to 2500 a month in Dublin
Options
Comments
-
Mickiemcfist wrote: »Its a general statement of course.
I work in the business of financing construction projects, a lot of what I say on boards is opinion, but I can tell you categorically that developers would make a fortune if there was suddenly upward demand outside of Dublin.
Obviously people have moved to Dublin. We were discussing the impact mass work from home setups would have, in which case there would be no motivation for immigrants to live in Dublin other than liking the city.
Again you're completely missing the point, I picked one example out of 26 possible counties, immigration would be more evenly spread than it currently is, therefore less impact on one particular area.
Honestly, Google what a pyramid or Ponzi scheme is. While you're at it, look at Google stock pre 2000 prices & compare that to now....does that mean Google is a Ponzi scheme? Because someone could have made a fortune on dividends (see rent), or asset growth.
In 1970 the average Irish house was worth c.3k punt, 20 years later they had increased ten fold to 30k. If you'd asked someone in 1990 do they think that in 16 years they would rise ten fold again they would have told you nobody in the world could afford to pay 300k for a house. - So yes, with the power of inflation I do believe there is every chance that some day the average house will be 3m.
No I think it's a deck chair, full stop......
*me saying full stop without any points accurately proving it to be a deck chair, doesn't make it a deck chair
You are far too close to the problem at hand to fully realise what is happening.
YES.......google stock is a pyramid scheme, whereby its value is only pushed higher by other people putting their money into it. Same with globalisation, same with cryptocurrency, same with ALL capitalism. Great if you fluked into it early, severely bad if you get into it late.
The only problem with the comparison between google stock value and housing is that people NEED housing and don't need google stock. There has been a paradigm shift away from extorting money from "luxuries" to "essentials".
I don't care what point you are trying to make about pyramid schemes not being what I think they are.......everyone will know what I mean.
And good luck waiting on a 1 bed flat in Darndale to be worth millions one day (and nevermind relative value, ie a 2 bedroom flat in sandymount being worth billions). Inflation is NOT matching employment value, and hasn't in a very long time and shows no signs of ever catching up.
So I still say it is all a "pyramid scheme". The only difference between now and whenever is that it is coming home to roost in the essentials of life.
Your argument, basically, is that everything is the same nowadays as it was at any other time in the countries history. I say it absolutely is not and that it is getting worse in terms of upward mobility.......ie the rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer.0 -
Mickiemcfist wrote: »I'm the same I personally wouldn't want to, but there's a lot to be said for 2 or 3 days at home, people would be able to commute from much further out
Yes my finger pressed the wrong button before I had time to finish my post :-), but that’s also how I see it. Full remote can’t work but it doesn’t mean there can’t be any remote work whatsoever.0 -
Thinking most people should work from home is a bit of a fantasy I think.
It is not just a matter of whether a job can technically be performed remotely. Humans need social interaction and a company needs to create a sense community within its staff.
Having fully remote staff in specific situations and more flexibility for the rest is the way things are going. But everyone working remote won’t work.
But in a lot of cases there isn't even the will to let people work remotely for 2 or 3 days a week. Lots of people would happily go in if they get to work half the week from home.0 -
Mickiemcfist wrote: »
You are far too close to the problem at hand to fully realise what is happening.
YES.......google stock is a pyramid scheme, whereby its value is only pushed higher by other people putting their money into it. Same with globalisation, same with cryptocurrency, same with ALL capitalism. Great if you fluked into it early, severely bad if you get into it late.
The only problem with the comparison between google stock value and housing is that people NEED housing and don't need google stock. There has been a paradigm shift away from extorting money from "luxuries" to "essentials".
I don't care what point you are trying to make about pyramid schemes not being what I think they are.......everyone will know what I mean.
And good luck waiting on a 1 bed flat in Darndale to be worth millions one day (and nevermind relative value, ie a 2 bedroom flat in sandymount being worth billions). Inflation is NOT matching employment value, and hasn't in a very long time and shows no signs of ever catching up.
So I still say it is all a "pyramid scheme". The only difference between now and whenever is that it is coming home to roost in the essentials of life.
Your argument, basically, is that everything is the same nowadays as it was at any other time in the countries history. I say it absolutely is not and that it is getting worse in terms of upward mobility.......ie the rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer.
Ugh this is getting arduous at this stage, I'm not too close to it as I have the same opinion now as I did before my role had a construction industry focus, which only moved in that direction in early 2017.
Re: Google, I'll leave it there as you're clearly not very well read on that particular business. It's got a wealth of businesses now that it has previously not had, it has knowledge & data that surpasses pretty much every other company in the world. It's valued at what it's value is in the eyes of the majority, people decide to buy and sell based on what they deem it's intrinsic value as. It's true that due to historically low interest rates the equities market is quite inflated, but Google is no more affected by that than any other. Everyone will know what you mean, not that they'll all agree with you.
Pending no massive financial paradigm shift, apocalyptic event or nuclear war, its entirely plausible that an apartment in Darndale will be worth millions some day. (FYI you're implying above that a place in Sandymount is at least 1000 times dearer than Darndale, which is clearly incorrect)
My argument, that you've quite happily chosen to ignore is that other than cash, debt (particularly current low interest debt) is the best possible way to buy a house currently - and certainly now, as long as rents are higher than repayment, with no sign of changing.
One thing we do seem to agree on is that yes the rich are getting richer, but your halfbaked idea of eh.....just renting forever and hoping that someday a paradigm will shift and getting a cheap house is fanciful in the extreme. And a solid way of ensuring the rich get even richer & the poor get even poorer.
Hint: who do you think people will be renting from? A: the "rich"0 -
Thinking most people should work from home is a bit of a fantasy I think.
It is not just a matter of whether a job can technically be performed remotely. Humans need social interaction and a company needs to create a sense community within its staff.
Having fully remote staff in specific situations and more flexibility for the rest is the way things are going. But everyone working remote won’t work.
Well let's say you offered it because it would cost nothing to offer it. If you got no takers nothing changes, no harm done. If you got 5000 takers who drive that's 5000 cars off the road.
5000 happy people, and 5000 people who now have options about where to live.0 -
Advertisement
-
Thinking most people should work from home is a bit of a fantasy I think.
It is not just a matter of whether a job can technically be performed remotely. Humans need social interaction and a company needs to create a sense community within its staff.
Having fully remote staff in specific situations and more flexibility for the rest is the way things are going. But everyone working remote won’t work.
Well let's say you offered it because it would cost nothing to offer it. If you got no takers nothing changes, no harm done. If you got 5000 takers who drive that's 5000 cars off the road.
5000 happy people, and 5000 people who now have options about where to live.
If a company was to offer full remote work to all its staff and they were to all take-up the offer, that company would quickly change course. Or they would need a fairly hefty budget for very regular team building activities as well as a policy to make those mandatory. Plus making sure they have rock solid processes to understand ans organise what the workforce is doing.
Also many individual workers would gradually realise that while remote work has many benefits, working alone at home the whole day can be a bit toxic for their mental health after a while (depending on personality).
I’ve been in a place where full remote was allowed and did it myself for a while, but not everyone was doing it and without a core group of workers in the office to go to once in a while employee engagement would definitely take a hit. In my case I think it worked well for a while because it was an international team and the job involved regular travels to other offices or others visiting this office (whereby you will make an effort to be present), which did boost engagement with colleagues.0 -
If a company was to offer full remote work to all its staff and they were to all take-up the offer, that company would quickly change course. Or they would need a fairly hefty budget for very regular team building activities as well as a policy to make those mandatory. Plus making sure they have rock solid processes to understand ans organise what the workforce is doing.
Also many individual workers would gradually realise that while remote work has many benefits, working alone at home the whole day can be a bit toxic for their mental health after a while (depending on personality).
I’ve been in a place where full remote was allowed and did it myself for a while, but not everyone was doing it and without a core group of workers in the office to go to once in a while employee engagement would definitely take a hit. In my case I think it worked well for a while because it was an international team and the job involved regular travels to other offices or others visiting this office (whereby you will make an effort to be present), which did boost engagement with colleagues.
Of course, the team building budget would be tiny compared to the office budget savings (presumably).
There are some good companies on this list: https://github.com/yanirs/established-remote
Also, I'm all for working on a team but when I have my own friends. And hobbies. And spouse. And a kid. That last one, in particularly, removed any desire to spend more time on team building and not on just getting **** done.
I love cities - and moved to Dublin because I liked it - but given the state of accommodation if I could work remote I'd probably go buy a house cash a long ways away - as in, the continent somewhere, and work from there so I could actually save for house and/or retirement (or, crazy thought - both!) . Maybe a nice French village. I dunno.0 -
Well let's say you offered it because it would cost nothing to offer it. If you got no takers nothing changes, no harm done. If you got 5000 takers who drive that's 5000 cars off the road.
5000 happy people, and 5000 people who now have options about where to live.
There is one possible issue though - the company says "we don't consider the cost of living in remuneration because you can work remote". This is great for those who can work remote, but if your spouse works in the city you're just kind of screwed.0 -
There is one possible issue though - the company says "we don't consider the cost of living in remuneration because you can work remote". This is great for those who can work remote, but if your spouse works in the city you're just kind of screwed.
I don't see that as a problem.
Even now, when a company isn't competitive people just work for a different company.0
Advertisement