3,140 rooms to rent & 8,500 houses to rent -what 'homeless' crisis

end of the road

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But it is ok that employed people are (due to economic necessity) forcefully relocated outside of areas where they grew up and have family and social connections?

personally no IMO as i don't think people moving further and further out will be sustainable in the long run, even though we have and may even get more, decent infrastructure out of it. however all of that will need to be paid for.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What about when these families and social connections are the cause of the anti social issues?

lock them up and employ enough gardai to be able to engage in tactical disruption of their activities. won't happen but i think it is what needs to be done and it will benefit us all.

Pawwed Rig

end of the road wrote: »

personally no IMO as i don't think people moving further and further out will be sustainable in the long run, even though we have and may even get more, decent infrastructure out of it. however all of that will need to be paid for.

What you are advocating for whether knowingly or not is that people should be allowed live wherever they like regardless of means.
This is far to the left of where almost any country in the world currently sits.

Re locking whole communities up? That is craziness to be fair. We would need 50 more prisons which would bring us close to US rates of per capita imprisonments.

end of the road

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What you are advocating for whether knowingly or not is that people should be allowed live wherever they like regardless of means.
This is far to the left of where almost any country in the world currently sits.

that may be but i believe that over all it is sustainable and means the population is concentrated so services can be delivered easier and cheaper over all.
people can of course live rurally if they want, that is their choice.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Re locking whole communities up? That is craziness to be fair. We would need 50 more prisons which would bring us close to US rates of per capita imprisonments.

of course we aren't locking whole communities up. i would be the first to come out against anyone who would suggest such.
what we are doing is locking up people who have engaged in sustained criminality, who have been given chances and refused to reform. we are locking up violent criminals for longer, etc.
for the low level stuff, we employ enough gardai so that there are resources to go around and disrupt those activities and hassle and annoy those people.

James Brown

Doc07 wrote: »

That’s fine but you could argue the ‘forcefully relocated’ remark applies more to private renters/homeowners who can’t afford to rent or buy where they grew up and live in commuter towns.

That's true but nobody is taking entire privately owned housing estates, moving the inhabitants to Tallaght and selling off the land to private contractors for a short sighted profit. Look around Cork street in Dublin, if ever you are passing that way. Apartment block, Spar, Apartment block, Spar....

Pawwed Rig

end of the road wrote: »

that may be but i believe that over all it is sustainable and means the population is concentrated so services can be delivered easier and cheaper over all.
people can of course live rurally if they want, that is their choice.

It would ultimately lead to stagnation as noone would be able to move anywhere as all the accomodation would be taken by locals. You would end up in situations where people would be travelling huge distances to access work and services rather than moving to where they need to be.
The capitalist system serves us well in this regard whereby the most productive members of society (in general) will have more means to buy closer to the workplace with the less productive living further away. This allows the 'wasted' time be the cheapest. This is skewed badly though by the amount of social housing in premium spots.

A high rise redevelopment of the North Inner City for example would have multiple benefits. The communities could be housed elsewhere is a more suitable location allowing the productive members of society short commute times in an out of work thereby being more productive and growing the economy.
Additional benefits would be the removal of the scourge of the walking dead and drug dealing from the area thereby making the capital city a more attractive place to visit.
Such a high rise development given the amount of space there is could house 10s of thousands of people. Rents would fall. Property prices would fall. Homelessness would fall. Crime would fall.

Plumbthedepths

Pawwed Rig wrote:

A high rise redevelopment of the North Inner City for example would have multiple benefits. The communities could be housed elsewhere is a more suitable location allowing the productive members of society short commute times in an out of work thereby being more productive and growing the economy. Additional benefits would be the removal of the scourge of the walking dead and drug dealing from the area thereby making the capital city a more attractive place to visit. Such a high rise development given the amount of space there is could house 10s of thousands of people. Rents would fall. Property prices would fall. Homelessness would fall. Crime would fall.

So you want Ballymun style ghettoes? Didn't work then not going to work now.

James Brown

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you want Ballymun style ghettoes? Didn't work then not going to work now.

None of the low/no income high rises panned out. Often little to no amenities or greenery, Garda no go areas, rife with drugs, joy riders and vigilantism.

n97 mini

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But it is ok that employed people are (due to economic necessity) forcefully relocated outside of areas where they grew up and have family and social connections?

What about when these families and social connections are the cause of the anti social issues?

That's the same argument as Jacinta who wants to live near her mammy in Dublin 1 with her babbies.

Can they not establish new networks? My father was born in Offaly, my mother in Galway, I grew up in Leitrim, and now live in Kildare. My wife is from Waterford, and her parents were from Cork and Tipperary. People can adapt without problems.

Pawwed Rig

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you want Ballymun style ghettoes? Didn't work then not going to work now.

If you can quote my post where I said that that'd be great:rolleyes:

Pawwed Rig

n97 mini wrote: »

That's the same argument as Jacinta who wants to live near her mammy in Dublin 1 with her babbies.

Can they not establish new networks? My father was born in Offaly, my mother in Galway, I grew up in Leitrim, and now live in Kildare. My wife is from Waterford, and her parents were from Cork and Tipperary. People can adapt without problems.

Agreed but why do we accept the inequality? Social welfare tenants live where they want whereas the people who pay live where they can afford.

n97 mini

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Agreed but why do we accept the inequality? Social welfare tenants live where they want whereas the people who pay live where they can afford.

I don't know. Are we too soft? Would appear we are.

Nermal

Cyclical Apocalypse wrote: »

No one on here has argued those unfortunate enough to be unemployed should be housed near the IFSC only that people shouldn't be forcefully relocated outside of areas where they grew up and have family and social connections.

'Not being given a free house' = 'being forcefully relocated'...

Anyone got the phone number of the IMF?

Eod100

Sweet.Science wrote: »

You never have to work
Fill out a form and post it off
Go on a list
Wait on list until you receive a house or an apartment

A monster was always going to be created.

Unemployment rate is 4.4%, lowest it's been since 2005. People entitled to their own opinions but not facts. Idea there's massive portion of country living off social welfare just doesn't stack up to basic scrutiny.

Cyclical Apocalypse

And some of that 4.4% is people transitioning between jobs and just relying on social welfare temporarily. Those who are capable of working and simply don't want to probably make up less than 1% of that figure.

Plumbthedepths

Pawwed Rig wrote:

A high rise redevelopment of the North Inner City for example would have multiple benefits. The communities could be housed elsewhere is a more suitable location allowing the productive members of society short commute times in an out of work thereby being more productive and growing the economy. Additional benefits would be the removal of the scourge of the walking dead and drug dealing from the area thereby making the capital city a more attractive place to visit. Such a high rise development given the amount of space there is could house 10s of thousands of people. Rents would fall. Property prices would fall. Homelessness would fall. Crime would fall.

Plumbthedepths wrote:

So you want Ballymun style ghettoes? Didn't work then not going to work now.

It's called summation.

Nimbyism. - Plans for 299 apartments in blocks of up to 9 storeys in Glasnevin rejected after significant local objection.

Pawwed Rig

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It's called summation.

It is called jumping to conclusions and misrepresenting what I said so my points can be answered with a cheap soundbite rather than a considered response.

Cyclical Apocalypse

There could be some good news depending on your particular viewpoint I saw one of the newspaper headlines I forget which one possibly the Examiner claim that if we have a No Deal Brexit, this could lead to a property downturn as investors pull out of the market. And if we do get the job losses predicted some landlords are going to have to lower the rent if they want to keep tenants.

Graces7

Here is a different aspect of homelessness..

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0712/1061635-homeless/

a hard place to be .

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

None of the low/no income high rises panned out. Often little to no amenities or greenery, Garda no go areas, rife with drugs, joy riders and vigilantism.

Can I quote this thread in the one where you said there were no ‘no go areas’ when we were talking about muslims.

Eric Cartman

Over the last few pages we appear to have a cycle going

The unemployed yobbos cant get jobs because they sell drugs etc..
They sell drugs because thats what goes on in their area...
But you cant give them a house not near their ma and friends because thats bad...
But they don’t need to be in the city and working people do...

So you have to leave the perpetually unemployed in an environment that causes them to make choices that keep them unemployed so they can raise their kids in an environment that causes the same , the whole time making less houses available for working people in cities and making areas unsafe but its not fair that people want that to stop...

And the second cycle we have here is - we need to build high rise in dublin , but not for social tenants because it creates ghettos , but we still need social housing in dublin , but space is limited, but somehow we need to find a way to build high density housing, fill it with the people who ruin every kind of housing they get and somehow not have a block of flats end up as a no go area... while its filled with people who as above can ot work because theyre too busy making/ keeping areas crime ridden

Boggles

Lance Spicy Face wrote: »

Nimbyism. - Plans for 299 apartments in blocks of up to 9 storeys in Glasnevin rejected after significant local objection.

I imagine it was rejected for several tangible reasons.

ABP would have published these.

ELM327

Eod100 wrote: »

Unemployment rate is 4.4%, lowest it's been since 2005. People entitled to their own opinions but not facts. Idea there's massive portion of country living off social welfare just doesn't stack up to basic scrutiny.

Yet as a country we have one of the highest rates of per capita "disability" payments (and accompanying benefits such as free travel).
We also have a massive rent allowance and hap bill, along with a large bill for housing people in hotels.


Worth noting that anyone on a BTEA scheme, on disability, or carers allowance, or anything like that, is not included in the 4.4%.


It's about the context of the figure and what it consists of. You cant just jump on the 4.4% because it suits your agenda.

Pawwed Rig

Eod100 wrote: »

Unemployment rate is 4.4%, lowest it's been since 2005. People entitled to their own opinions but not facts. Idea there's massive portion of country living off social welfare just doesn't stack up to basic scrutiny.

€20.5 billion to be spent on social welfare in 2019.

Cyclical Apocalypse

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

€20.5 billion to be spent on social welfare in 2019.

And most of that goes on pensions the actual value going to the long-term unemployed is tiny in comparison.

Pawwed Rig

Cyclical Apocalypse wrote: »

And most of that goes on pensions the actual value going to the long-term unemployed is tiny in comparison.

Have you got back up for this assertion? The only figures I can find are for 2014 where only 32% of it was pensions with a similar amount being spent on 'working age supports'.

Would be interested to see current stats

atticu

Eod100 wrote: »

Unemployment rate is 4.4%, lowest it's been since 2005. People entitled to their own opinions but not facts. Idea there's massive portion of country living off social welfare just doesn't stack up to basic scrutiny.

Cyclical Apocalypse wrote: »

And some of that 4.4% is people transitioning between jobs and just relying on social welfare temporarily. Those who are capable of working and simply don't want to probably make up less than 1% of that figure.

I am not sure if you don’t understand the unemployment figure, or if you are just hoping that you can use the figure incorrectly and hope that others don’t notice.

Cyclical Apocalypse

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Have you got back up for this assertion? The only figures I can find are for 2014 where only 32% of it was pensions with a similar amount being spent on 'working age supports'.

Would be interested to see current stats

Sorry, it took me so long but here is the official breakdown on expenditure from the government.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/socialprotection/2019/

As you can clearly see pensions is currently the largest expenditure in Social Protection.

ELM327

Cyclical Apocalypse wrote: »

Sorry, it took me so long but here is the official breakdown on expenditure from the government.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/socialprotection/2019/

As you can clearly see pensions is currently the largest expenditure in Social Protection.

40%,
but when you add together all the benefits given to those who don't work but are not of pension age, it is more than the €8m pensions bill


This is a great example of how statistics can prove anything. €8m from a €20m bill is indeed for pensions, but 4 of the others should actually be grouped together as the dole bill. €9.13 million is the total paid to those of working age who don't/can't/won't work or work in sustainable jobs.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

€20.5 billion to be spent on social welfare in 2019.

Most is pensions. We probably need to get rid of civil service pensions.

Pawwed Rig

Billions there on income supports. So definitely not an insignificant amount.
Pensions will always be highest because.old people are more likely to vote.

ampleforth

Perhaps, and I don't meant that in disrespect or with ignorance, it is worth thinking about jobs outside of Dublin as a possible point for change.

Low paying jobs would suggest that they are less specialised (which can be a great thing) and can then perhaps also be found in more rural areas or smaller cities that are equally fun to live in.

If you are highly specialised, like parts of IT or academia, then Dublin seems the place to be, but it does not mean that Cork won't work. I also know people who live in Kildare town or Newbridge and work in Dublin -- yes it is a commute and you have to sit on a bus or a train or drive (which means you need a car and a ticket, true, that will cost you money), but then you can have a 3-bed semi for around 200-220k if you up-do it a bit over time. As long as you get out of the rent-cycle you are generally fine.

I also recognise that this is in part caused by companies who are lazy (or politically more correct: 'over-focused on convenience') --- they head for metropolitan areas to have easy access to labour and infrastructure.

I guess what I try to say is that there is more to Ireland than just Dublin city centre. Even when you live in inner Dublin, your commute is probably never less than an hour a day...

ampleforth

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Most is pensions. We probably need to get rid of civil service pensions.

Now we know that you are not a civil servant

Cyclical Apocalypse

atticu wrote: »

I am not sure if you don’t understand the unemployment figure, or if you are just hoping that you can use the figure incorrectly and hope that others don’t notice.

What about the figure, don't I understand?

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

40%,
but when you add together all the benefits given to those who don't work but are not of pension age, it is more than the €8m pensions bill


This is a great example of how statistics can prove anything. €8m from a €20m bill is indeed for pensions, but 4 of the others should actually be grouped together as the dole bill. €9.13 million is the total paid to those of working age who don't/can't/won't work or work in sustainable jobs.

You realise working tax payers are included? It's not just dutch gold drinkers hanging out at the bookies. Society and the economy would crumble if more working people couldn't afford to function/work or landlords/vulture funds suddenly ran out of subsidised tenants.

ELM327

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You realise working tax payers are included? It's not just dutch gold drinkers hanging out at the bookies. Society and the economy would crumble if more working people couldn't afford to function/work or landlords/vulture funds suddenly ran out of subsidised tenants.

Hence why I also said "work in sustainable job"
Your job is not sustainable if you cannot provide for your lifestyle on your wages without state support.


The majority goes to those who do not work though.

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

Hence why I also said "work in sustainable job"
Your job is not sustainable if you cannot provide for your lifestyle on your wages without state support.

Yet the economy, we're told, is going great. Maybe the problem is government policies and not dole spongers after all?

ELM327 wrote: »

The majority goes to those who do not work though.

If you're including pensioners and the sick, you might be right.

Boggles

2 of the most interesting figures on that site are.

1. 5.53 billion to "service" the national debt.

2. 72m for Deserted Wife's Benefit. - Have never heard of that one, sounds like something from the 50s. What if your a deserted Husband?

Cyclical Apocalypse

Boggles wrote: »

2 of the most interesting figures on that site are.

1. 5.53 billion to "service" the national debt.

2. 72m for Deserted Wife's Benefit. - Have never heard of that one, sounds like something from the 50s. What if your a deserted Husband?

I decided to look it up online to see if there was any form of payment for a deserted husband and surprise surprise this is what the High Court had to say when a man tried to challenge the state for discrimination.

"The Supreme Court found that in 1984 the State was justified in holding that deserted wives had greater needs than deserted husbands."

I take it the man didn't get too far when he appeared to the UN.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/deserted-husband-looks-to-un-after-defeat-in-court-1.186174%3fmode=amp

Boggles

ELM327 wrote: »

but 4 of the others should actually be grouped together as the dole bill. €9.13 million is the total paid to those of working age who don't/can't/won't work or work in sustainable jobs.

Which "4 others"?

atticu

Cyclical Apocalypse wrote: »

And some of that 4.4% is people transitioning between jobs and just relying on social welfare temporarily. Those who are capable of working and simply don't want to probably make up less than 1% of that figure.

Cyclical Apocalypse wrote: »

What about the figure, don't I understand?

You claimed that the people who don’t want to work make up less than 1% of the 4.4% unemployment figures.

They don’t. They are not considered to be unemployed.


Unemployed: Persons who, in the week before the survey, were without work and available for work within the next two weeks, and had taken specific steps, in the preceding four weeks, to find work.

Source:
https://www.cso.ie/en/methods/surveybackgroundnotes/labourforcesurvey/

Cyclical Apocalypse

According to this source,

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/long-term-unemployment-rate

The most recent data indicates the countrywide long term unemployment rate currently sits at 2.2%, which is the lowest since 2008. In total, this figure represents around 50,000 people. When adjusted in percentage terms for the entire population of working age according to the CSO the value comes out to 1.59%

Now I assume there are some in the above percentage with undiagnosed disability's, long term mental health issues and those like my friend who have to care for a sick parent or relative.

So yes, I still believe that the rate of those who genuinely don't want to work out of sheer bone idleness is at 1% or below.

Boggles

lola85 wrote: »

Now we have the highest disability claimees in Europe.

Have you data to back that up? Not saying I don't believe you.

lola85 wrote: »

Actually I’ll start here and wait for an answer.

Why Ireland??

Coincidence?

Maybe this has something to do with it?

More than 550,000 patients were waiting to see a consultant for an out-patient appointment, while 70,000 who had been assessed by a consultant were waiting for follow-on treatment

Graces7

Boggles wrote: »

Have you data to back that up? Not saying I don't believe you.



Maybe this has something to do with it?

The figures you rightly quote are a sheer disgrace to Ireland

see

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/0712/1061813-national-treatment-purchase-fund/

atticu

Cyclical Apocalypse wrote: »

So yes, I still believe that the rate of those who genuinely don't want to work out of sheer bone idleness is at 1% or below.

You can believe what you want. It is only your belief, not fact.

The fact is that the people who don’t want to work are not recorded as unemployed.

Boggles

atticu wrote: »

You can believe what you want. It is only your belief, not fact.

The fact is that the people who don’t want to work are not recorded as unemployed.

Absolute nonsense.

Here is the May press release using the methodology you linked to.

https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2019pressreleases/pressstatementlabourforcesurveyq12019/

there were 114,400 people unemployed in Q1 2019, and this was down 14.0% or 18,600 from Q1 2018. When seasonally adjusted, the unemployment rate decreased from 5.6% to 5.0% over the quarter, while the seasonally adjusted number of persons unemployed decreased by 14,300 to 120,300.

Long term unemployment, which refers to those persons unemployed for one year or more, accounted for 35.7% of total unemployment in Q1 2019.

markodaly

Unemployment statistics tell only a part of the picture.

In 2016, 11.6% of the Irish adult population aged between 18 and 59 years (EU average: 10.1%) lived in a household where no one is working - i.e. all household members are either unemployed or economically inactive

This figure places Ireland in the first quarter of the least performing EU
countries. More worryingly, the proportion of children under 18 years living in such households is 13.4% (EU: 10.5%), the second worst figure in the EU. While the trend is downwards for both the adult and children populations since 2010, there is a considerable degree of persistence in the phenomenon of jobless households in Ireland.

There is a significant underclass in Ireland which we pander to time and again.

Plumbthedepths

markodaly wrote:

There is a significant underclass in Ireland which we pander to time and again.

'Underclass' as always the mask of your average FG supporter slips.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

Unemployment statistics tell only a part of the picture.

2016?

Unemployment was hovering around 9% coming off the arsé end of an economic collapse.

You might want to have a look for more recent stats there.

markodaly

ALMOST ONE IN six Irish households has no adults of working age in employment, according to the Department of Social Protection.

Figures from 2018 good enough for you?

https://www.thejournal.ie/jobless-households-3832381-Feb2018/