What have we come to

James Brown

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You seem to have some problem reading. Not just my posts but a few others so will leave you to it....

Show me what I'm misunderstanding. Thanks.

Tony EH

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The reply was to TonyEH, pal, nothing to do with your input

Bowie's point still stands though. When the party you shill for is criticised for their failings, you start looking for someone else to blame.

Brendan Bendar

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, it will take a long time to fix the problems that the PDs, FF, FG have caused in the health service over the years.

One thing's for sure though. FFG certainly aren't going to bother their arses trying.

Tony EH wrote: »

Bowie's point still stands though. When the party you shill for is criticised for their failings, you start looking for someone else to blame.

Incorrect Tony, in my posts I consider everyone with skin in the game to have some responsibility.

If you consider a football team who go out and make a poor effort do you put all the blame on the manager or coaches?

Unless you have an agenda you don’t.

Most sensible and pragmatic folk include the effort of everyone in the analysis.

You would do well to actually read my posts properly....... unless.... unless you have,like the football analogy ...an agenda:cool:

Tony EH

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Incorrect Tony, in my posts I consider everyone with skin in the game to have some responsibility.

I'm sure you do Bren.

Brendan Bendar

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm sure you do Bren.

Took you a long time to come to that conclusion, Tony.

But hey, better late than never.

Tony EH

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Took you a long time to come to that conclusion, Tony.

But hey, better late than never.

It's taking a lot longer for it to reflect in your posts Brendan.

hatrickpatrick

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!

Missed this comment last week so only replying to it now: The problem you're missing is that you're asking people to accept a massive drop in living standards over time. Most of the young people who are struggling now actually had an easier time making rent during the recession on part time incomes sharing with their fellow college students, those same people are now in full time careers and are being forced to move back home because rent growth has simply outstripped wages in every possible vector.

Nobody is going to accept a decline in living standards, such as being asked to pay far more for the same apartment after several years without a corresponding rise in income, or being asked to moved away from their locality and social circle in order to afford rent at a similar level to what they've been paying for years, without kicking up a serious an very justified fight about it. The reason rents were more affordable back then vs now is down to a downturn in the property market and a wave of emigration among the generation which preceded this one, but it doesn't change the fact that people accept living standards to remain the same or improve over time and will never "just accept" that they have to get worse. And this should have been seen from a mile away by anyone in a position to make government policy.

When I was in college, a duplex apartment in the city centre with three bedrooms was rented by a few of my friends for approximately €1,000 per month. Today, you're lucky to even get a one bedroom shoebox in a similar location for anything less than 150% of that at €1,500 (I know because many of my friends are actively looking). This is a level of inflation over a short period of time which is simply unacceptable in terms of how it impacts individual quality of life, and to put it bluntly, young people don't give a f*ck why it's happening, they just want a government to do something about it. FFG, by routinely blocking measures to reduce the cost of housing and increase the supply of affordable housing, have made themselves the enemies of that generation. And I know this personally because several of the apartments I'd be referencing here were in Stoneybatter, the same area in which the FG government explicitly blocked DCC from increasing the amount of social and affordable housing in the O'Devaney Gardens redevelopment by threatening to block the whole project if the majority of the new units didn't go to enriching the developer instead.

Brendan Bendar

Tony EH wrote: »

It's taking a lot longer for it to reflect in your posts Brendan.

Hoy up any posts which have driven you to that conclusion,Tony and we can have a conversation.

Tony EH

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hoy up any posts which have driven you to that conclusion,Tony and we can have a conversation.

If you think I'm going to waste time trawling through your posts Brendan, you've another thing coming. :pac:

Brendan Bendar

Tony EH wrote: »

If you think I'm going to waste time trawling through your posts Brendan, you've another thing coming. :pac:

Good man Tony, you got a bit of sense in the end.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Missed this comment last week so only replying to it now: The problem you're missing is that you're asking people to accept a massive drop in living standards over time. Most of the young people who are struggling now actually had an easier time making rent during the recession on part time incomes sharing with their fellow college students, those same people are now in full time careers and are being forced to move back home because rent growth has simply outstripped wages in every possible vector.

Nobody is going to accept a decline in living standards, such as being asked to pay far more for the same apartment after several years without a corresponding rise in income, or being asked to moved away from their locality and social circle in order to afford rent at a similar level to what they've been paying for years, without kicking up a serious an very justified fight about it. The reason rents were more affordable back then vs now is down to a downturn in the property market and a wave of emigration among the generation which preceded this one, but it doesn't change the fact that people accept living standards to remain the same or improve over time and will never "just accept" that they have to get worse. And this should have been seen from a mile away by anyone in a position to make government policy.

When I was in college, a duplex apartment in the city centre with three bedrooms was rented by a few of my friends for approximately €1,000 per month. Today, you're lucky to even get a one bedroom shoebox in a similar location for anything less than 150% of that at €1,500 (I know because many of my friends are actively looking). This is a level of inflation over a short period of time which is simply unacceptable in terms of how it impacts individual quality of life, and to put it bluntly, young people don't give a f*ck why it's happening, they just want a government to do something about it. FFG, by routinely blocking measures to reduce the cost of housing and increase the supply of affordable housing, have made themselves the enemies of that generation. And I know this personally because several of the apartments I'd be referencing here were in Stoneybatter, the same area in which the FG government explicitly blocked DCC from increasing the amount of social and affordable housing in the O'Devaney Gardens redevelopment by threatening to block the whole project if the majority of the new units didn't go to enriching the developer instead.

Anyone who has ever bought a house faced a drop in living standards as they sacrified to buy a home.

What is different is that the current generation want to keep the holidays, the Netflix subscription, the latte in the mornings etc.

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyone who has ever bought a house faced a drop in living standards as they sacrified to buy a home.

What is different is that the current generation want to keep the holidays, the Netflix subscription, the latte in the mornings etc.

Agree about the lattes and wasterful expenditure, you have to sacrifice during the saving process. My brother just bought a house and the mortgage is significantly lower than the market rent on a virtually identical house!

Tony EH

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Good man Tony, you got a bit of sense in the end.

So not trawling through your gibberish makes sense to you as well Brendan. Good lad.

Brendan Bendar

Tony EH wrote: »

So not trawling through your gibberish makes sense to you as well Brendan. Good lad.

Yep, when you know you can’t find any proof of your accusations, it certainly does..

It would indeed be a waste of time.

Top man, Tony.

Tony EH

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Yep, when you know you can’t find any proof of your accusations, it certainly does..

It would indeed be a waste of time.

Top man, Tony.

You keep telling yourself that.

Tony EH

Idbatterim wrote: »

Agree about the lattes and wasterful expenditure, you have to sacrifice during the saving process. My brother just bought a house and the mortgage is significantly lower than the market rent on a virtually identical house!

The cost of buying a home is outstripping people's abilities to pay for it.

It has nothing to do with lattes.

Too many people aren't even getting a sniff of the housing ladder, regardless of what "sacrifices" they're willing to make.

James Brown

Tony EH wrote: »

The cost of buying a home is outstripping people's abilities to pay for it.

It has nothing to do with lattes.

Too many people aren't even getting a sniff of the housing ladder, regardless of what "sacrifices" they're willing to make.

It's gone from not happening to people pretending, to 'kids today'.
The arrogance and self entitlement party are out. Hopefully we see a government looking out for the struggling tax payer.

Idbatterim

Tony EH wrote: »

The cost of buying a home is outstripping people's abilities to pay for it.

It has nothing to do with lattes.

Too many people aren't even getting a sniff of the housing ladder, regardless of what "sacrifices" they're willing to make.

yes, also true. depends on your circumtance, some can do it by cutting out wasterful expenditure, others are you say, could live on bread and water for years and it wouldnt be enough

Yurt2

Bowie wrote: »

It's gone from not happening to people pretending, to 'kids today'.
The arrogance and self entitlement party are out. Hopefully we see a government looking out for the struggling tax payer.

To anyone who's reading the thread who are caught in the rental trap; it should be obvious to you that the ladder is being well and truly pulled up and those doing the pulling are thumbing their nose at you talking of Netflix and avacados.

James Brown

Yurt! wrote: »

To anyone who's reading the thread who are caught in the rental trap; it should be obvious to you that the ladder is being well and truly pulled up and those doing the pulling are thumbing their nose at you talking of Netflix and avacados.

That's what happened. Victim blaming, as the numbers of victims grew...and then voted.

Cupatae

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyone who has ever bought a house faced a drop in living standards as they sacrified to buy a home.

What is different is that the current generation want to keep the holidays, the Netflix subscription, the latte in the mornings etc.

What utter horse ****

Except now the sacrifice to get a house is a pint of blood and your first born, you d be dropping alot more than 7 quid Netflix and one holiday a year to afford a house or even rent these days

It's simple the vast amount of people on average jobs with a kid car and basic necessities financially will never be able to afford a house .

You see the problem yet ?

Tony EH

Cupatae wrote: »

Except now the sacrifice to get a house is a pint of blood and your first born, you d be dropping alot more than 7 quid Netflix and one holiday a year to afford a house or even rent these days

It's simple the vast amount of people on average jobs with a kid car and basic necessities financially will never be able to afford a house .

You see the problem yet ?

I know you're being a little facetious here. But, this is true in some cases. Some people, despite being in jobs, are forgoing having kids because they cannot afford them.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyone who has ever bought a house faced a drop in living standards as they sacrified to buy a home.

What is different is that the current generation want to keep the holidays, the Netflix subscription, the latte in the mornings etc.

What a stupid assessment.

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyone who has ever bought a house faced a drop in living standards as they sacrified to buy a home.

Not always the case, my family and I moved from social housing to our present home in 2004. Our mortgage was less than our rent by almost €25 per week. A few friends of mine have bought in the last few years where again the rent exceeded what they are now paying for a mortgage. Raising the deposit is the issue for many.

Tony EH

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not always the case, my family and I moved from social housing to our present home in 2004. Out mortgage was less than our rent by almost €25 per week. A few friends of mine have bought in the last few years where again the rent exceeded what they are now paying for a mortgage. Raiding the deposit is the issue for many.

It's the issue right now for far too many people.

They haven't a hope of scraping together the money for a deposit and far too much of their wage goes on renting some overpriced fleece of "accommodation".

Someone who thinks that it's all being flittered away on lattes, etc, isn't remotely living on the same planet.

Into the bargain, if younger folk are spending their money on lattes, it has more to do with the realisation that even if they save every penny they can and live life like a hermit, they'll STILL never get on the housing ladder.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyone who has ever bought a house faced a drop in living standards as they sacrified to buy a home.

What is different is that the current generation want to keep the holidays, the Netflix subscription, the latte in the mornings etc.

I'm not talking about people who are saving to buy a house, I'm talking about people who are renting long term and have seen their living standards decline substantially over ten years due to rents increasing orders of magnitude faster than wage inflation. You cannot ignore this issue or dismiss it as a non-issue by pivoting to separate issues such as issues surrounding saving to buy a home, which is obviously a related situation but in no way the same thing.

Let me try and spell it out a little more clearly: Somebody renting an apartment in Dublin since 2011 most likely has far less disposable income now than they did then, even if for instance they've moved from a part time college job to a full time career, because - and this is the key factor you're ignoring in my posts - the cost of renting has increased extremely rapidly while wages have not, and the overall cost of living is higher due to increased utility costs, increased public transport fairs, more stealth taxes, etc etc etc. That is a simple fact, and that is what's causing so much anger among young people who predominantly rent and were college-aged during the worst years of the recession. The expectation that starting a full time job would bring an increase in living standards has simply not turned out to be true because of the rampant stagflation in the Irish economy, of which the cost of renting is one gigantic contributory factor.

Other factors contributing to an increased cost of living relative to take-home pay are obviously also at fault, but the central fact here is that the laissez-faire neoliberalism employed by Fine Gael is seem as a directly contributing factor to the stagflation issue, their refusal to take literally any action at all (building more social housing, proper rent controls, tackling the insurance industry, capping personal injury claims, changing liability law so that self-inflicted accidents are not the responsibility of business owners, etc etc etc) to deal with the cost of living being a secondary and equally infuriating factor. On these issues, FG have either point blank refused to consider left wing policy options or else, in the case of insurance and liability, have blustered, ranted and talked about it ad nauseum without actually doing anything to change the relevant legislation.

None of your rebuttals are addressing the simple fact that the cost of living is increasing faster than average wages over time. This is the single greatest cause of discontent among young people, and FG have spent ten years in office refusing point blank to do anything about it or acknowledge it as a problem requiring any form of government intervention.

Are you denying that stagflation is an issue in the Irish economy or are you simply suggesting that young people should "put up and shut up" and continue voting for political parties which are intent on fiddling while Rome burns when it comes to this very acute and very specific issue?

Tony EH

^
I feel that entire post is going to fall on deaf ears.

smurgen

Tony EH wrote: »

It's the issue right now for far too many people.

They haven't a hope of scraping together the money for a deposit and far too much of their wage goes on renting some overpriced fleece of "accommodation".

Someone who thinks that it's all being flittered away on lattes, etc, isn't remotely living on the same planet.

Into the bargain, if younger folk are spending their money on lattes, it has more to do with the realisation that even if they save every penny they can and live life like a hermit, they'll STILL never get on the housing ladder.

The flittering away on lattes comment reminds me of the let them eat cake comment.just as detached from reality.

Shefwedfan

Another day, another headline story about a SF Politician and none of it the right news stories

How did Mary Lou get on today with forming a government? packed agenda meeting all the parties to discuss?

hatrickpatrick

Tony EH wrote: »

The cost of buying a home is outstripping people's abilities to pay for it.

It has nothing to do with lattes.

Too many people aren't even getting a sniff of the housing ladder, regardless of what "sacrifices" they're willing to make.

smurgen wrote: »

The flittering away on lattes comment reminds me of the let them eat cake comment.just as detached from reality.

Bowie wrote: »

That's what happened. Victim blaming, as the numbers of victims grew...and then voted.

These three comments sum it up fairly well - "let them eat cake" was swiftly followed by revolution, and that is exactly what happened at the ballot box a week and a half ago. The idiocy of those who doing well out of the current intentionally exploitative paradigm in assuming its vicitms wouldn't fight back is astounding, and their attempts to shame us into regretting or apologising for that choice is honestly somewhere between hilarious and genuinely disturbing. That anyone could be this far removed from the lived experience of their fellow country men and women is something which should frighten anyone who believes in any form of social unity.