What have we come to

sameoldname

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

How is voting Sinn fein ludicrous but voting for the same two parties that destroyed the country over and over again in anyway sane or logical?

But using the same logic, those same two parties created one of the richest, progressive and equal countries on earth. SF can make no such claims.

And the most recent "destruction of the country" was caused in part by FF following the populist policies of narrowing the tax net and over inflating the construction sector among other things. You might want to check the SF manifesto and see if there are any similarities with those policies.

The Central Bank actually just released a report saying that basically the economy has now reached peak output. If we start borrowing billions to build an extra 25,000 homes a year (which is an 100% increase) what do you think will be the outcome? The nice term is an "economic correction".

Airyfairy12

jmayo wrote: »

There is huge amount of comment on all these threads about our housing problems.
And loads of promises that sinn fein would do something more to solve it.

I have been chasing a certain shinner around here to elaborate and their one comment has been that the Austrians can do it.

Except of course they didn't point out that Austrians build apartments in sometimes highrises for social and affordable housing.

And that leads me to point that a lot of Irish people need to start copping on that the days are gone when they can buy a house in or near city centres, especially Dublin.
Authorities, planners and politicians are going to have to start building upwards for accommodation and people that want to live in city centres are going to have to accept that they will live in apartments.

A lot of people think that they should be able to buy where their parents bought or somewhere similar, but they need to realise Ireland is a much changed place from the time their parents bought.
Their parents were able to buy because they were working in a country that was an economic backwater and the population was a hell of a lot less.
The number of people with good well paying jobs back in the 70s or 80s in Ireland was not large.
Nowadays thanks to our much improved economy the numbers competing for the limited supply is much bigger.
Hence the old argument about nowadays Gardai, nurses and teachers not being able to buy like their predecessors.
Back in the old days they weren't competing against scores of software engineers, marketing types, service delivery managers, accountants, business analysts, etc.

Authorities, planners and politicians are going to have to seriously plan the development of other hubs outside of Dublin.

These mean long term fooking planning which is something we as a state are fooking terrible at.

And when we do decide to build housing it should have services built before the accommodation is built.
Other countries manage to do it and it is fooking time we started doing it rather than adding schools, medical centres, community centres, parks, playgorunds, etc after the fact.

No more fooking sweet deals for developers where they stick up houses/apartments and leave a waste land around it.

Oh and total revamp of our building regulatory authorities.

Its not just Dublin though, it's everywhere. Unless people are coupled up and both earning over 40,000 or have parents able to fund them, they will not stand a chance of owning a house, whether that be in Dublin or Mullingar.
The homeless crisis is all over Ireland, not just Dublin and the amount of houses and apartments isnt the only issue, its the cost of them that causing the biggest problems.
There is a block of apartments built in the last 5 years in my small town where a chunk of them are vacant because the rent on them is so high. Theyre not even that nice, they were thrown up, theyre tiny inside and most only have one or two tiny bedrooms with a connected kitchen/living area and are priced at 1500 a month. Who has that kind of money in a small town where there are no jobs?

The government can afford to spend billions building hotels and the most expensive hospital in Europe - all the while they have a recruitment ban on hospital staff during a health care crisis and they cant pay nurses a livable wage.

When will people cop on and realise that FF and FG dont care about providing anything in this country. They will keep pumping into the economy at the expense of everyone else.
But round and round we go, they'll continue to get voted in.

Airyfairy12

sameoldname wrote: »

But using the same logic, those same two parties created one of the richest, progressive and equal countries on earth. SF can make no such claims.

And the most recent "destruction of the country" was caused in part by FF following the populist policies of narrowing the tax net and over inflating the construction sector among other things. You might want to check the SF manifesto and see if there are any similarities with those policies.

The Central Bank actually just released a report saying that basically the economy has now reached peak output. If we start borrowing billions to build an extra 25,000 homes a year (which is an 100% increase) what do you think will be the outcome? The nice term is an "economic correction".

So on paper we look great while in reality we have a ridiculous public transport system, a shortage of hospital staff and a recruitment ban and nurses employed cant afford to keep themselves afloat while working 48 hour shifts.
Goverment then goes ahead and builds the most expensive hospital in Europe - again this looks great on paper, makes us look like we're doing great to other countries.
We have the worst homeless crisis since we had tenements yet the government can spend billions on new hotels.

Strange how the government is concerned about money and the economy when the topic of housing and health crisis is brought up but when it suits them can go ahead and blow billions.

And just to add, Sinn fein cant make such claims about anything because the same two parties have been voted in continuously for almost a century.

James Brown

whodafunk wrote: »

I have serious grave concerns over SF taking over power. I understand people wanted change I get that but feel this was more a protest vote.

And FF?

Yurt2

Fred Cryton wrote: »

i think a lot of the problem is the expectations millenials have. They seem to have this entitlement to live in a nice apartment in the centre of the city, probably because they grew up watching shows like Friends. Why should they? If others have more money and want to live there, they will do so. The rent reflects aggregate demand and aggregate supply for living in that area. I read that Niamh Horan in the independent complain about the cost of rent, turns out she's living in Grand Canal Dock! Why "must" a journalist live in one of the most expensive parts of town?



If i was a young millennial (and i'm in my 30's so i'm not that old), i would rent a room out in Kildare at 600 per month rather than try to pay 1800 per month for an apartment in the city centre. Save diligently the difference, month after month until i have my deposit. Then, buying in the city is relatively cheap compared to renting, there are plenty of apartments around for 250k to 350k. Two people earning the average wage of 40k could buy an apartment in Dublin city quite easily. But it requires discipline, saving. The millennials want a sugar daddy taxpayer to take care of them. That mentality needs to change!

You and attitudes like the above are a prime example why FG got wrecked on Saturday, and will continue to get wrecked by that generation as more and more young people join Ireland's housing sh*heap. All the while people who are home and hosed, who are shrinking by the year continue to patronise them and talk of avocados.

quokula

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

So on paper we look great while in reality we have a ridiculous public transport system, a shortage of hospital staff and a recruitment ban and nurses employed cant afford to keep themselves afloat while working 48 hour shifts.
Goverment then goes ahead and builds the most expensive hospital in Europe - again this looks great on paper, makes us look like we're doing great to other countries.
We have the worst homeless crisis since we had tenements yet the government can spend billions on new hotels.

Strange how the government is concerned about money and the economy when the topic of housing and health crisis is brought up but when it suits them can go ahead and blow billions.

And just to add, Sinn fein cant make such claims about anything because the same two parties have been voted in continuously for almost a century.

You complain about the nurse salaries, but international surveys show Ireland pays nurses more than nearly any country in the world. Eg http://creativenurse.com/nurse-salaries-from-high-to-low-around-the-world/ rates us top three in the world for a nurse to work.

Meanwhile other people on this thread say they vote SF because the government spend too much. SF get to spout whatever lies they want and take both sides of the argument while never having to prove anything.

Lots of stats have been posted on this thread already showing that we enjoy an extremely high standard of living in this country for the most part and while we do have problems, they are problems with no easy solutions that are shared all across the world. I really dread the thought of SF taking us backwards to the standard of living they’ve had under SF in the north.

Cupatae

The ironic thing about the whole housing thing is, someone on minimum wage.. is better off on the dole, they have a more viable chance of getting a house that way rather than getting a mortgage, i mean can you even get a mortgage on minimum wage even if you have a deposit ?

Fann Linn

Cupatae wrote: »

The ironic thing about the whole housing thing is, someone on minimum wage.. is better off on the dole, they have a more viable chance of getting a house that way rather than getting a mortgage, i mean can you even get a mortgage on minimum wage even if you have a deposit ?

Yes. With a rebuilding Ireland mortgage facilitated through your local authority.

Airyfairy12

quokula wrote: »

You complain about the nurse salaries, but international surveys show Ireland pays nurses more than nearly any country in the world. Eg http://creativenurse.com/nurse-salaries-from-high-to-low-around-the-world/ rates us top three in the world for a nurse to work.

Meanwhile other people on this thread say they vote SF because the government spend too much. SF get to spout whatever lies they want and take both sides of the argument while never having to prove anything.

Lots of stats have been posted on this thread already showing that we enjoy an extremely high standard of living in this country for the most part and while we do have problems, they are problems with no easy solutions that are shared all across the world. I really dread the thought of SF taking us backwards to the standard of living they’ve had under SF in the north.

Im not a nurses myself but from speaking to nurses they will tell you they earn **** all. Theres good reason why so many of them are in Australia and London. The statistics might show a decent wage but thats not the case for actual nurses. Its like how they're trying to say that teachers earn a starting salary of 36k.
If a teacher were to walk into a full time permanent job straight out college,they might earn close to 36k but that never happens, most earn under 20k. Same goes for nurses, dont fall for the government statistics, they'll put out anything that makes the country look good on paper. Also, your link isnt very credible.

I think the comments were focusing on the what the government spent so much on - like billions on an unaffordable and unneeded hospital, hotels and a printer. Not to mention their own ridiculous wages, bonuses and pensions.

Statistics show a high standard of living? for who? The adults forced to live with their parents into their 40's? the homeless kids, old people and working families? The people cramped in modern tenements in Dublin?
The only people with a high standard of living are the middle and upper classes.

Youre clearly unaffected by the current system as youre obviously middle class yourself

Theres a bang of 'im alright jack' off your post, seen a few of those on boards lately. Must be nice up in your ivory tower.

Judging people by government statistics while ignoring the blatant issues that are happening across the country.

joseywhales

Cupatae wrote: »

They aren't even that cheap in the west either you d still be aiming for 150-250k for something decent, it's crazyness , and sad really when you think about it people are boxed into living at home with a very steep up hill battle to get there own home,

Not everyone lives in Dublin either, and the jobs they are saying aren't very good , are the majority of jobs

But even if someone manages to get the house get the child care afford the car if by some miracle they are able to do that... They have little to no room to even enjoy life .

I can't wait to hear the retort of people..."they should get better jobs " please point out said jobs that the majority can get!

Not everyone can or ever will own a home, not matter who is in government.

There is nothing wrong with renting for life.

In fact the more developed the country, the less residential units are owner occupied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate


I'd also like to point out that the cost of building a house in labour and materials and land would easily be 150k(if you did all the management yourself) or more for a 2 bed detached home. So unless you want builders to be paid less and housing standards to be reduced, that's the price.

Yurt2

joseywhales wrote: »

Not everyone can or ever will own a home, not matter who is in government.

There is nothing wrong with renting for life.

There would be nothing wrong with renting for life as is more common in Europe if there was some sort of security of tenure, no renovictions, and sensible arrangements and brakes around rental inflation and gouging as is common in Europe. Regrettably, if adjustments to any of these proposed in Ireland, steam starts coming out of the property lobby's ears and we're told we're going down the road of Venezuela.

Eoin O'Brion's proposed introduction of the Viennese rental model in Ireland (if people sat down to think about it for a second, it's actually an excellent solution to at least part of the housing problem in Ireland) is framed as some sort of Leninist attack on the sacred rights of property owners - and they plug their ears when people try to make the case for it.

I've seen countless threads on boards were that merry-go-round happens.

Person A: How about an afforable rental / purchase model as adopted in X or Y European country?

Person B: F*ck off out of here with your free-gaffes talk. Cuba. Margret Cash.

mfceiling

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

We have the worst homeless crisis since we had tenements yet the government can spend billions on new hotels.

Just interested to know where these hotels are?

Are hotels not usually built by chains/private investors?

Why would any government build their own hotels and actually spend billions doing it?

Yurt2

Fann Linn wrote: »

Yes. With a rebuilding Ireland mortgage facilitated through your local authority.

A couple (never mind a single person) on minimum wage with the x3.5 salary rules this will be next to impossible in all but the most peripheral counties (Donegal or Longford perhaps).

Fann Linn

Yurt! wrote: »

A couple (never mind a single person) on minimum wage with the x3.5 salary rules this will be next to impossible in all but the most peripheral counties (Donegal or Longford perhaps).

A nephew of the wife's just after buying a house outside Balbriggan through this scheme. That's why I mentioned it in the first place.

GreeBo

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

When I say 'good job' I mean jobs that require a higher level of education, many of which pay minimum wage. Which brings me back to my original point of how educated working people cant afford to live.

How does higher education make it a good job?
We had a thread on here recently about a newspaper article where a guy was "complaining" that he had to move to London as he couldnt get a job with his masters in Arts & History in Longford.


Good Job is one that pays a good wage and is not likely to disappear.

If its minimum wage then its by definition not a good job!

This is a huge part of the problem. Too many young people have unrealistic expectations. Having an nice house in a nice area close to where you work when you are earning the minimum wage is just pie in the sky stuff.

Sure if that was the case, why would anyone break their balls working 80 hour weeks?

PommieBast

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Only the difference is the UK and US voted for hard right wing governments. Ireland is gone the complete opposite by majority of people under 40 voting left.

Most under-40s in the UK also voted left. The difference is the UK uses FPTP.



https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

Earthhorse

Fann Linn wrote: »

A nephew of the wife's just after buying a house outside Balbriggan through this scheme. That's why I mentioned it in the first place.

A friend of mine bought a place in Doneycarney under this scheme too. It's absolutely possible to do it in Dublin.

Yurt2

Earthhorse wrote: »

A friend of mine bought a place in Doneycarney under this scheme too. It's absolutely possible to do it in Dublin.

No doubt, but nobody could make of it work in or around the minimum wage in Dublin and in most counties, which is what prompted the chain of responses.

Earthhorse

Yurt! wrote: »

No doubt, but nobody could make of it work in or around the minimum wage in Dublin and in most counties, which is what prompted the chain of responses.

Yes, I'm just after reading back and seeing that. My friend and his partner aren't on minimum wage but I don't think they're on the average wage either and they have a small child too. So it's possible to make it work on a tight budget (I agree, not on minimum wage though).

A part of the problem with the economic analysis on this thread (much of which I agree with) is that it's not looking at the type of jobs being created. A lot of jobs these days are baristas, bicycle couriers etc. There's nothing wrong with doing that for a living but it is minimum wage work and so it's difficult for people to progress economically. In short, it's no good being at full employment without looking at the quality of that employment compared to that of previous generations.

That's a genuine problem that requires addressing and can't just be hand waved away and it's only going to get worse with increased automation in the future.

Geuze

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

So on paper we look great while in reality we have a ridiculous public transport system, a shortage of hospital staff and a recruitment ban and nurses employed cant afford to keep themselves afloat while working 48 hour shifts.

Recruitment ban???!!!!

Employment in h/care is rising year on year.

HSE also overspends its budget.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/corporate/hse-annual-report-and-financial-statements-2018.pdf


In one year, 2017 to 2018, we added 867 nurses.

Brendan Bendar

mfceiling wrote: »

Just interested to know where these hotels are?

Are hotels not usually built by chains/private investors?

Why would any government build their own hotels and actually spend billions doing it?

Mf I have been ‘skimming’ through Airy’s posts and I’ll have to say most of them just reek of innaccuracy, hearsay, generalizations, suppositions, and the usual exchanges that most folk would perhaps describe as ‘pub talk’.


Which is why I don’t bother responding.

Airyfairy12

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes, I'm just after reading back and seeing that. My friend and his partner aren't on minimum wage but I don't think they're on the average wage either and they have a small child too. So it's possible to make it work on a tight budget (I agree, not on minimum wage though).

A part of the problem with the economic analysis on this thread (much of which I agree with) is that it's not looking at the type of jobs being created. A lot of jobs these days are baristas, bicycle couriers etc. There's nothing wrong with doing that for a living but it is minimum wage work and so it's difficult for people to progress economically. In short, it's no good being at full employment without looking at the quality of that employment compared to that of previous generations.

That's a genuine problem that requires addressing and can't just be hand waved away and it's only going to get worse with increased automation in the future.

Its only doable for couples who have two incomes. If both are earning 35K, thats 70K between them. What are single people supposed to do?
Again, the government is only looking out for people who have money.

Earthhorse

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Its only doable for couples who have two incomes. If both are earning 35K, thats 70K between them. What are single people supposed to do?
Again, the government is only looking out for people who have money.

Not every scheme can address every issue.

Sweet.Science

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not every scheme can address every issue.

They really should increase the amount you can earn to go on the housing list. It should increase from 35k a year to 60k if you are single.
There is a huge amount in the private rental trap forever

What happens when all this people retire and can no longer afford extortionate rent?

Yurt2

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not every scheme can address every issue.

I don't think he's suggesting that, but the ones that saying housing unaffordability can't be solved (I'd disagree on that count) are typically the ones who also baulk at regulation of the rental sector, rental security or rental controls generally. Even the deaf ear gets turned to rather sensible and economically sustainable proposals such as the Vienna affordable rental model.

There will be a lot of people heading into pensions poverty in their old age on this current course. We, as in society generally, are making a very serious rod for our own backs with the 'there is nothing anyone can do' mode.

PommieBast

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Its only doable for couples who have two incomes. If both are earning 35K, thats 70K between them. What are single people supposed to do?
Again, the government is only looking out for people who have money.

More accurately they are looking after those who can hire accountants who know how to bend the rules.

Earthhorse

Sweet.Science wrote: »

They really should increase the amount you can earn to go on the housing list. It should increase from 35k a year to 60k if you are single.

I don't know that I agree. 60k seems like a huge wage to me. I bought my 2 bed apartment in D4 on a 40k wage. A lot of saving and sacrifice was involved in that.

Now I'm to help someone on a good deal more money than I was when I bought, buy a place? This seems crazy to me.

Yurt! wrote: »

I don't think he's suggesting that, but the ones that saying housing unaffordability can't be solved (I'd disagree on that count) are typically the ones who also baulk at regulation of the rental sector, rental security or rental controls generally. Even the deaf ear gets turned to rather sensible and economically sustainable proposals such as the Vienna affordable rental model.

There will be a lot of people heading into pensions poverty in their old age on this current course. We, as in society generally, are making a very serious rod for our own backs with the 'there is nothing anyone can do' mode.

I cannot speak for those people, only for myself. I don't think there is "nothing anyone can do". There are lots of things we can do to relieve these issues. But we cannot expect every single last problem to be addressed or for one scheme to address every problem.

Cupatae

joseywhales wrote: »

Not everyone can or ever will own a home, not matter who is in government.

There is nothing wrong with renting for life.

In fact the more developed the country, the less residential units are owner occupied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate


I'd also like to point out that the cost of building a house in labour and materials and land would easily be 150k(if you did all the management yourself) or more for a 2 bed detached home. So unless you want builders to be paid less and housing standards to be reduced, that's the price.

The problem is the rent is more than likely more than a mortgage would be, the second problem you are saying it like there will always be a few cases of renting for life but the reality is the majority will be lucky if they can rent for life, the gap between most wages and the cost of living is insane.

If you are lucky enough to scrape by and afford the house car childcare ect that ll be about your lot you wont have much room to even enjoy life.

gormdubhgorm

I found this video where Leo Varadkar was speaking and was repeatedly interrupted by Mary Lou from across the house.

Leo then referenced SF's lack of comprise in NI and resulting collapse etc.

Mary Lou in fit of pique and petulance, disrupted the house

If she is to be Taoiseach she surely has to learn to act with more class and decorum? At least act like at stateswoman?

Ironically the speaker following Mary Lou's antics, was Eamon O'Cuiv. Who constantly acts with decorum and is statesman like. Fantastic Irish as well unlike Leo or Mary Lou.

Also O'Cuiv is a main of compromise and is willing to compromise with SF. It had occurred to me that if O'Cuiv ever becomes leader of FF what will the state of play be? It will almost be like SF and FF have come full circle. Former FF'er Mary Lou and the grandson of of some fella from SF.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

I see FFG both saying no to a coalition with SF on the basis that they have significant policy differences.

The reality is that FFG have significant differences with a vast majority of the Irish electorate which voted for change.

There will be lots of haggling and whispers behind closed doors now as FFG scramble to build a coalition. Neither wants to go back to a 2nd election because they will be massacred, you have TDs from both parties who only got in on the 4th or 5th count, sometimes much more.