What have we come to

Cupatae

JamesM wrote: »

It has always been normal to have a 20 to 30 year mortgage. And even Gorey is only an hour on the bus to Dublin city centre - and you get to walk on the beach when you get home in the summer time:).

Too many unrealistic expectations from the younger generation who don't know what hard work and saving is :rolleyes:

You re right I'd say most youth don't know what savings are , hard to save when ya have to spend it all to stay afloat.

But back in yer day twas different ye were the real generation of workers! Haha

Tony EH

JamesM wrote: »

It has always been normal to have a 20 to 30 year mortgage. And even Gorey is only an hour on the bus to Dublin city centre - and you get to walk on the beach when you get home in the summer time:).

Too many unrealistic expectations from the younger generation who don't know what hard work and saving is :rolleyes:

No, it wasn't "always normal". It's become normalised only in the last 20 something years, where a 35 year mortgage is needed to even get a sniff.

In addition, the new normal is looking at the better part of half a million just to buy a modest home.

There's nothing "normal" about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYRtHG4bdeI

Jinglejangle69

Bowie wrote: »

Maybe 3 if FG are involved.

FG got the boot buddy.

They're gone, finished , the electorate spoke.

It wants houses now with hands over ears.

FG can't provide this so it's over to SF.

FG are finished, no point looking to them for solutions.

Eoghan Murphy the bogey man's days are over.

Time for Eoin ó Broin to sort this crisis out.

Martin Lanigan

the_syco wrote: »

Why would a bank lend if a political party will write off the arrears?

I assumed people would detect my sarcasm

Martin Lanigan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many houses would 31m have bought DCC ?

SF expect to get at least 300 houses for that.

hatrickpatrick

JamesM wrote: »

I couldn't afford to live in Dun Laoghaire. But I did work hard - save - get a mortgage and buy a house in a much less upmarket area. And I know young couples who are doing that today.

But again you’re missing the point - young people could afford to live in these places for most of the last ten years, and they’re now being asked to leave the areas they’ve made their homes in because rents are increasing so much faster than wages. And they’re being asked to significantly downgrade their housing expectations no matter where they have to move to, away from whatever social support network or community they’ve spent the last decade building - and all because he cost of living, and specifically the cost of housing, is rapidly increasing faster than take home pay and thus literally pricing young people out of their homes.

This isn’t just about people trying to move to an area, this is about renters being forced to leave the areas they’ve spent the last decade considering their home towns because they’re being priced out of it by rent increases, or by seeing their rent increase by several hundred euro in one go just because they have to move across the street. That is something people simply aren’t going to accept - particularly when the general idea is that once you move from college to a proper career, you should be able to afford a better quality of life, not have to keep downgrading as your wage stagnates over five or six years but everything you love becomes more and more expensive.

This is unacceptable and unsustainable, and this is what young people are furious with FG for ignoring and allowing to fester.

Jinglejangle69

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But again you’re missing the point - young people could afford to live in these places for most of the last ten years, and they’re now being asked to leave the areas they’ve made their homes in because rents are increasing so much faster than wages. And they’re being asked to significantly downgrade their housing expectations no matter where they have to move to, away from whatever social support network or community they’ve spent the last decade building - and all because he cost of living, and specifically the cost of housing, is rapidly increasing faster than take home pay and thus literally pricing young people out of their homes.

This isn’t just about people trying to move to an area, this is about renters being forced to leave the areas they’ve spent the last decade considering their home towns because they’re being priced out of it by rent increases, or by seeing their rent increase by several hundred euro in one go just because they have to move across the street. That is something people simply aren’t going to accept - particularly when the general idea is that once you move from college to a proper career, you should be able to afford a better quality of life, not have to keep downgrading as your wage stagnates over five or six years but everything you love becomes more and more expensive.

This is unacceptable and unsustainable, and this is what young people are furious with FG for ignoring and allowing to fester.

FG are gone.

Time for SF to sort this out

hatrickpatrick

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

FG are gone.

Time for SF to sort this out

Agreed. I’m merely trying to explain why young people have surged to SF and other left parties in numbers which seem to have astonished so many people here and elsewhere. It’s a very simple answer: stagflation particularly with regard to housing, and a previous government which appeared to actively not give a bollocks.

Jinglejangle69

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Agreed. I’m merely trying to explain why young people have surged to SF and other left parties in numbers which seem to have astonished so many people here and elsewhere. It’s a very simple answer: stagflation particularly with regard to housing, and a previous government which appeared to actively not give a bollocks.

You're not cheerleading SF anymore for an election as its over.

The people spoke.

We all know why SF got the surge.

Why don't you discuss what's next after FG have been given the boot.

We need solutions now.

GreeBo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You do realize that SF got 25% of the vote.....

Viva la revol....oh.
Oh dear.

GreeBo

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

FG got the boot buddy.

They're gone, finished , the electorate spoke.

It wants houses now with hands over ears.

FG can't provide this so it's over to SF.

FG are finished, no point looking to them for solutions.

Eoghan Murphy the bogey man's days are over.

Time for Eoin ó Broin to sort this crisis out.

Erm maths anyone?
What percentage of seats do FG have compared to SF?
SF are just as finished.

JamesM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But again you’re missing the point - young people could afford to live in these places for most of the last ten years, and they’re now being asked to leave the areas they’ve made their homes in because rents are increasing so much faster than wages. And they’re being asked to significantly downgrade their housing expectations no matter where they have to move to, away from whatever social support network or community they’ve spent the last decade building - and all because he cost of living, and specifically the cost of housing, is rapidly increasing faster than take home pay and thus literally pricing young people out of their homes.

This isn’t just about people trying to move to an area, this is about renters being forced to leave the areas they’ve spent the last decade considering their home towns because they’re being priced out of it by rent increases, or by seeing their rent increase by several hundred euro in one go just because they have to move across the street. That is something people simply aren’t going to accept - particularly when the general idea is that once you move from college to a proper career, you should be able to afford a better quality of life, not have to keep downgrading as your wage stagnates over five or six years but everything you love becomes more and more expensive.

This is unacceptable and unsustainable, and this is what young people are furious with FG for ignoring and allowing to fester.

I could NOT have afforded to live in Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock, Dalkey or anywhere like that 40 years ago when I bought. I remember lads who grew up in Dalkey giving out that they could not buy where they grew up. It's always been like that. Couples bought in poorer areas and barely had a bed and maybe a cooker and a kitchen table and chairs - these were people who came from, what you would call posh families. As the years went on, they saved and maybe moved to a larger house in a 'better' area. No one felt entitled to the good life.

hatrickpatrick

JamesM wrote: »

I could NOT have afforded to live in Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock, Dalkey or anywhere like that 40 years ago when I bought. I remember lads who grew up in Dalkey giving out that they could not buy where they grew up. It's always been like that. Couples bought in poorer areas and barely had a bed and maybe a cooker and a kitchen table and chairs - these were people who came from, what you would call posh families. As the years went on, they saved and maybe moved to a larger house in a 'better' area. No one felt entitled to the good life.

Again, you're missing the point. People I know could afford to live here in the earlier half of this decade, and a gigantic proportion of them got evicted at some point for renovations or because the landlord needed the flat for a relative, etc - and found that new leases cost orders of magnitude more than the ones they were leaving. So they either had to downgrade substantially, leave town, or in many cases move back home. The point is that when they could afford "the good life" on part time college wages during a recession, but were then told "sorry, you can't afford it anymore" on full time career salaries, and given the boot from where they had been living, that is just not something people are going to accept.

It would be different if, as you say, people in this generation could never afford to live in these parts of Dublin, but the fact that they could in their early twenties and are now priced out in their late twenties as the same gaffs they used to live in are now on Daft for anywhere between €1,000 and €1,500 more per month than they were in the earlier half of the decade, while even in the transition from part time college jobs to full time careers people aren't earning anywhere close to that much more to be able to keep pace with inflation, means that essentially "the good life" was dangled in front of them during a time when prices were low, and they're understandably furious that it's been snatched out of reach (as others have put it, 'the ladder has been pulled up') and nobody in power was willing to do anything about it. Being told to move from the town you've been living in on your own because some greedy f*ckers want to massively increase the cost of living in that area isn't going to do anything other than cause anger and resentment towards those greedy f*ckers - and, crucially, the politicians who are seen as being "on their side".

Do you accept that the stagflation issue has caused people who formerly had a very good quality of life to have to settle for less? That somebody who could afford an apartment to rent back in 2012 or 2013 on a part time salary might seriously struggle to do so today without moving miles from home, even on a full time salary?

Call it "that's life" or "tough" or whatever, but people simply won't accept it. And they will crucify any politician who is seen to take the "it's ok with us, learn to live with it" attitude as opposed to the "it's not ok and we're going to try to change it" attitude espoused by the left.

hatrickpatrick

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

You're not cheerleading SF anymore for an election as its over.

The people spoke.

We all know why SF got the surge.

Why don't you discuss what's next after FG have been given the boot.

We need solutions now.

I have been. We need to stop selling public land en masse to the private market a la O'Devaney Gardens and start building fully state owned public housing while widening the net for who qualifies to live in it. We also need to simultaneously introduce rent controls and tax the ever living sh!t out of any viable unit of housing which is left vacant and not made available for rent or sale, to avoid the "landlords will just leave the market" argument. The housing is bricks and mortar, if landlords leave the market then that means the housing is being left empty, and that can be targeted with crippling punitive taxation for anyone who engages in hoarding of that manner.

In combination, these policies would reduce the cost of housing in the short term and the supply issue in the longer term. Make it more or less 'illegal' through aggressive financial penalties for anyone to own a second or further property and leave it vacant without trying to find a tenant or buyer, and build social housing on the kind of scale we did throughout the 20th century, back when governments saw securing a decent quality of life for their citizens as a duty and not a burden to be shaken off.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

So the way to tackle the housing crisis is to build ‘free’ houses..

That’s one way, Jim, well it is one way, not much used in fairness in any developed country.

Who is going to pay for these, one wonders.

Not at all.
Do you like free hotels and fancy apartments?
The long and the short of it is put people up in the Gresham or build social housing.
Any arrears could be taken at source along with rent due IMO. So hopefully we've seen the back of Margaret cash's benefactors the FG and we'll get some folk in to sort it.

smurgen

Bowie wrote: »

Not at all.
Do you like free hotels and fancy apartments?
The long and the short of it is put people up in the Gresham or build social housing.
Any arrears could be taken at source along with rent due IMO. So hopefully we've seen the back of Margaret cash's benefactors the FG and we'll get some folk in to sort it.

Taking rent a source would be a good pragmatic decision imo.

GreeBo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, you're missing the point. People I know could afford to live here in the earlier half of this decade, and a gigantic proportion of them got evicted at some point for renovations or because the landlord needed the flat for a relative, etc - and found that new leases cost orders of magnitude more than the ones they were leaving. So they either had to downgrade substantially, leave town, or in many cases move back home. The point is that when they could afford "the good life" on part time college wages during a recession, but were then told "sorry, you can't afford it anymore" on full time career salaries, and given the boot from where they had been living, that is just not something people are going to accept.

It would be different if, as you say, people in this generation could never afford to live in these parts of Dublin, but the fact that they could in their early twenties and are now priced out in their late twenties as the same gaffs they used to live in are now on Daft for anywhere between €1,000 and €1,500 more per month than they were in the earlier half of the decade, while even in the transition from part time college jobs to full time careers people aren't earning anywhere close to that much more to be able to keep pace with inflation, means that essentially "the good life" was dangled in front of them during a time when prices were low, and they're understandably furious that it's been snatched out of reach (as others have put it, 'the ladder has been pulled up') and nobody in power was willing to do anything about it. Being told to move from the town you've been living in on your own because some greedy f*ckers want to massively increase the cost of living in that area isn't going to do anything other than cause anger and resentment towards those greedy f*ckers - and, crucially, the politicians who are seen as being "on their side".

Do you accept that the stagflation issue has caused people who formerly had a very good quality of life to have to settle for less? That somebody who could afford an apartment to rent back in 2012 or 2013 on a part time salary might seriously struggle to do so today without moving miles from home, even on a full time salary?

Call it "that's life" or "tough" or whatever, but people simply won't accept it. And they will crucify any politician who is seen to take the "it's ok with us, learn to live with it" attitude as opposed to the "it's not ok and we're going to try to change it" attitude espoused by the left.

You are mixing people affording to buy vs affording to rent, two very different things.

hatrickpatrick

GreeBo wrote: »

You are mixing people affording to buy vs affording to rent, two very different things.

I'm not the one mixing it, I've been focusing on the cost of rent throughout all of my posts. Others keep pivoting to the cost of buying in order to try and frame my arguments as strawmen. The cost of rent is the biggest issue driving under-30s towards Sinn Fein and other left wing groups, buying generally isn't on that demographic's radar at least until the tail end of that decade. So far, nobody has actually refuted (or even tried to refute, without changing the subject) that a minimum rise of 150% in the cost of renting over less than ten years represents a gigantic increase in the cost of living relative to wage inflation and, no matter how one tries to spin it, results in a gigantic reduction in quality of life as higher and higher proportions of peoples' incomes are spent on rent (combined with other utility costs which have also increased dramatically over ten years). This is classic "stagflation", the "free market solves everything" parties refused point blank to do anything about it in office, ergo a large swing towards Sinn Fein. That's all I've been trying to point out, so far nobody on the opposing side is addressing the spiralling cost of living over a short period of time as a problem which requires government action as opposed to a "well that's life, live with it" attitude. People will not live with it without revolting in some way, so when OP asks "what have we come to" with regard to Sinn Fein's rise - this is literally the answer to that. People want more bang for their buck and they certainly don't want to accept an overall reduction in living standards wherein a full time career job provides a lower standard of living to a part time college job because the cost of living and renting has reached such staggering levels of inflation during that period.

The government simply cannot ignore the cost of living issue as "well that's just the free market, tough" without anticipating an electorate which will, in droves, turn to "well f*ck the free market then" left wing politics. It just doesn't compute. How this isn't blindingly obvious to everyone trying to analyse this situation is beyond me.

Idbatterim

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not the one mixing it, I've been focusing on the cost of rent throughout all of my posts. Others keep pivoting to the cost of buying in order to try and frame my arguments as strawmen. The cost of rent is the biggest issue driving under-30s towards Sinn Fein and other left wing groups, buying generally isn't on that demographic's radar at least until the tail end of that decade. So far, nobody has actually refuted (or even tried to refute, without changing the subject) that a minimum rise of 150% in the cost of renting over less than ten years represents a gigantic increase in the cost of living relative to wage inflation and, no matter how one tries to spin it, results in a gigantic reduction in quality of life as higher and higher proportions of peoples' incomes are spent on rent (combined with other utility costs which have also increased dramatically over ten years). This is classic "stagflation", the "free market solves everything" parties refused point blank to do anything about it in office, ergo a large swing towards Sinn Fein. That's all I've been trying to point out, so far nobody on the opposing side is addressing the spiralling cost of living over a short period of time as a problem which requires government action as opposed to a "well that's life, live with it" attitude. People will not live with it without revolting in some way, so when OP asks "what have we come to" with regard to Sinn Fein's rise - this is literally the answer to that. People want more bang for their buck and they certainly don't want to accept an overall reduction in living standards wherein a full time career job provides a lower standard of living to a part time college job because the cost of living and renting has reached such staggering levels of inflation during that period.

The government simply cannot ignore the cost of living issue as "well that's just the free market, tough" without anticipating an electorate which will, in droves, turn to "well f*ck the free market then" left wing politics. It just doesn't compute. How this isn't blindingly obvious to everyone trying to analyse this situation is beyond me.

brilliant post and I absolutely agree, it is so simple to understand, it beggars belief, that it has to be spelled out, like something complex you would try to explain to a child! it is so simple to understand, it beggars belief that some dont get it and that FG those morons, didnt see it coming. For those of you, that dont get it, how would you feel if your mortgage had shot up to a multiple of its original and kept on increasing, eating massively into your living standards, you'd be ok with that would you? I believe only 20 percent of people here are renters (hence the establishment are delighted with the deliberate rip off prices), but thats a few hundred thousand and will start holding serious influence, look at the shift to SF and there must be people desperate, but who also wouldnt vote SF for whatever reason! I can see the housing situation boiling over entirely, supply is up hugely, but nowhere near enough and the affordability issued is entirely unadressed...

Yurt2

Idbatterim wrote: »

supply is up hugely, but nowhere near enough and the affordability issued is entirely unadressed...

Supply does not equal greater affordability. There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that supply in ultra low interest conditions supply released into the market actually pushes up prices, particularly when institutional investors have more power than the individual would-be purchaser and the state. Feeding frenzy.

We can look at markets like Australia and see this phenomenon in action.

James Brown

The majority of new builds are build to rent. These are entities feeding on the crisis and taxed at low rates because ...well that's a matter of opinion.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

The majority of new builds are build to rent. These are entities feeding on the crisis and taxed at low rates because ...well that's a matter of opinion.

Have you evidence of that,as a matter of interest.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Have you evidence of that,as a matter of interest.

Yes.

"The build-to-rent sector is driving apartment building, while the public sector and Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs) are contributing to a surge in social housing," Mr O'Leary said.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0121/1109790-goodbody-home-figures/

I've posted other links over the months.

This is where you say..

"arra g'wan...something something".

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Yes.



I've posted other links over the months.

This is where you say..

"arra g'wan...something something".

You seem to be trying too hard, a chara.

Your ‘evidence’ refers to apartment buildings..hardly backs up what you claim?

The ‘link’ means nothing to me?

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You seem to be trying too hard, a chara.

Your ‘evidence’ refers to apartment buildings..hardly backs up what you claim?

The ‘link’ means nothing to me?

Fair enough.

Investors pile into property as turnover in build-to-rent sector reaches €2.54bn
Turnover in the build-to-rent sector more than doubled last year to €2.54 billion as institutional investors piled in to the Dublin market in particular.
According to commercial property agent Cushman and Wakefield, turnover in 2019 more than doubled compared to the previous year, reaching a record high of €2.54 billion across 51 deals in the part of the market also known as the private residential sector (PRS).
In the past 12 months forward commitments accounted for about €1.3 billion, or 51 per cent, of activity, up from €531 million the previous year. Those sales comprised 2,850 homes, while the total number of units transacted last year is estimated to be in excess of 6,500.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/investors-pile-into-property-as-turnover-in-build-to-rent-sector-reaches-2-54bn-1.4177334

Brendan Bendar

The majority........1%. ?

LuckyLloyd

hatrickpatrick, fair play lad: brilliant patient posting. You’ve clearly articulated the problem and the required solutions.

Obviously you can go one step further from your rental analysis: that cohort paying such a high percentage of their take home for ever lessor rental options cannot save effectively to buy a house. So you’ve got this pissed off generation suffering a lower standard of living (or less independence) year on year who won’t be able to exit the rental trap unless they ‘get a lend off their Da’, as suggested by the head of state.

So they hear SF offering to lead a different approach to housing and they’re all for it.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The majority........1%. ?

Doesn't include the new builds for LA's/State leases, rentals and purchases.

James Brown

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

hatrickpatrick, fair play lad: brilliant patient posting. You’ve clearly articulated the problem and the required solutions.

Obviously you can go one step further from your rental analysis: that cohort paying such a high percentage of their take home for ever lessor rental options cannot save effectively to buy a house. So you’ve got this pissed off generation suffering a lower standard of living (or less independence) year on year who won’t be able to exit the rental trap unless they ‘get a lend off their Da’, as suggested by the head of state.

So they hear SF offering to lead a different approach to housing and they’re all for it.

The SD's and FF too. Seems FG are the only ones looking at the worsening crisis and thinking 'steady as she goes'.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

The SD's and FF too. Seems FG are the only ones looking at the worsening crisis and thinking 'steady as she goes'.

Only ones who actually ‘did anything ‘ concrete(pardon the unintended pun)
about it.

Remainder have horsed out ideas and stuff but haven’t laid a block.

Let’s wait and see how they do, I hope they do well and fulfill their promises, but as of now they haven’t laid an official brick on a brick.