Boomer Wealth

Geuze

McGaggs wrote: »

The political class are landlords and/or voted in by landlords. They'll not go for policies that will reduce rents or property asset values

Yes.

We need a politician to come out and say:

"rents and house prices, especially in urban areas, are too high"

And then we need them to commit to actually causing rents and house prices to fall.

If urban rents and house prices fall, that should be seen as a success.


NB: I don't mean a sudden collapse, causing negative equity, I mean a slow, gradual fall.

atticu

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I'm spending over 50% of it on rent and bills alone, then my next biggest expense is food, and then transport. So something like 70% of my post tax earnings are gone on basic survival alone, before I even get into trying to save, or having any disposable income.

It seems to me that you are earning minimum wage, if you are paying half of your take home pay on renting a room in a house outside Dublin.

Nothing wrong with that, just that you have not said where or what you are renting, and how much you pay in rent.

Wanderer78

atticu wrote: »

It seems to me that you are earning minimum wage, if you are paying half of your take home pay on renting a room in a house outside Dublin.

Nothing wrong with that, just that you have not said where or what you are renting, and how much you pay in rent.

many younger generations are getting stuck in low paid jobs, 40/30k, and lower

PokeHerKing

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

35.

Graduated right into the crisis, emigrated, came back and retrained and now finally in a position to save.

Why?

I'm 35, bought a house 6 years ago. Would love to have bought in Terenure where I grew up but we couldn't afford what we wanted so we moved further out and bought.

Does my anecdotal tale carry anymore weight than yours?

There is no generational bogey man at play imo. There is just life, as its always been. Timing, luck and circumstances all come into play and always have.

But as I said, the fact you referenced rathgar as an example of somewhere an average earning single person should be able to buy makes me think you're more entitled than unfortunate but I don't know you, so apologies if that's not true.

Wanderer78

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I'm 35, bought a house 6 years ago. Would love to have bought in Terenure where I grew up but we couldn't afford what we wanted so we moved further out and bought.

Does my anecdotal tale carry anymore weight than yours?

There is no generational bogey man at play imo. There is just life, as its always been. Timing, luck and circumstances all come into play and always have.

But as I said, the fact you referenced rathgar as an example of somewhere an average earning single person should be able to buy makes me think you're more entitled than unfortunate but I don't know you, so apologies if that's not true.

disagree, mounting data to support arguments

The J Stands for Jay

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

the last recession a huge amount of pensions that so-called Boomers had been paying into for decades were wiped out practically overnight.

No one's pension was wiped out.

Ush1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

sorry, no idea what you mean now? i know folks in their 60's - 20's, that would be lost without covid payments

Keep telling yourself that you have no ability to change your living situation and you never will. Simple as that really.

lainey_d_123

beauf wrote: »

No looking at the stats last year its about a third of what it was in 2012/2013 (2008 wasnt a peak). 2008 was about 60% of the peak, and the 80s peak.

Well remember it was a global financial crisis, so a lot of the time there wasn't a great benefit to emigrating. Hardly the same as living in a poor country and going elsewhere to make big bucks, is it?

Even then, a lot of people did leave in 2008 and the few years afterwards in the hope they would find at least something a bit better. It was just framed as 'young people going off to have a bit of fun' instead of what it was - emigration because of poverty.

PokeHerKing

Wanderer78 wrote: »

disagree, mounting data to support arguments

Wow, you really buried me in facts there...

The J Stands for Jay

beauf wrote: »

If you were to look at some of these houses that are now unaffordable.

They were probably built with one bathroom, no Central heating, single glazing, basic kitchen. Basic materials and finishes. Often in the middle of nowhere with no facilities near them.

Could you buy something similar today at a reasonable price. Then upgrade it over 20 yrs and gamble that it's a good investment? Probably.

No, because the current building standards don't allow that sort of crap to be built, so you'd have to spend a fortune to bring it up to a standard to hope online would be interested in buying it on the future rather than a house already built to those standards.

lainey_d_123

atticu wrote: »

It seems to me that you are earning minimum wage, if you are paying half of your take home pay on renting a room in a house outside Dublin.

Nothing wrong with that, just that you have not said where or what you are renting, and how much you pay in rent.

Nope, I'm now in London and earning a good wage. Living alone in a small flat as I can no longer share due to chronic illness (tbh flat isn't loads more than a flatshare would be - I got a very good deal due to the pandemic). This is the best I've ever been financially and it's still a struggle to save.

Wanderer78

Ush1 wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that you have no ability to change your living situation and you never will. Simple as that really.

no its not, theres no question, older generations worked hard for what they have, but conditions were radically different, they havent worked as hard in watching the value of their assets grow, i have assets myself, id say i could count the calories i used in watching their value grow, on one hand!

Wanderer78

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Wow, you really buried me in facts there...

take you time, maybe sit down and have a cup of tea, some fresh air to, it ll be okay

lainey_d_123

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I'm 35, bought a house 6 years ago. Would love to have bought in Terenure where I grew up but we couldn't afford what we wanted so we moved further out and bought.

Does my anecdotal tale carry anymore weight than yours?

There is no generational bogey man at play imo. There is just life, as its always been. Timing, luck and circumstances all come into play and always have.

But as I said, the fact you referenced rathgar as an example of somewhere an average earning single person should be able to buy makes me think you're more entitled than unfortunate but I don't know you, so apologies if that's not true.

Oh for God's sake, I wasn't saying anyone should be able to buy in Rathgar or that I wanted to! I was refuting the statement that 150K would get you a one bed 'in Dublin city' and making the point that there were only a few properties in that price range, and only in really bad areas. The reason I posted the Rathgar property was to show how little you get for even 200K anywhere remotely 'nice'.

That poster made a totally baseless statement that 'single people on average incomes' expect to buy 3 bed houses in Dublin city, and my point was that it would even be a stretch for such a person to buy a one-bed flat.

beauf

McGaggs wrote: »

No, because the current building standards don't allow that sort of crap to be built, so you'd have to spend a fortune to bring it up to a standard to hope online would be interested in buying it on the future rather than a house already built to those standards.

So what we saying is those standards are uninhabitable despite the fact many grew up in them no problem. Maybe its not so much of a crisis then.

Ush1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

no its not, theres no question, older generations worked hard for what they have, but conditions were radically different, they havent worked as hard in watching the value of their assets grow, i have assets myself, id say i could count the calories i used in watching their value grow, on one hand!

These discussions never go anywhere so I'll leave you with this. Housing is a complicated issue, with no simple fixes and there will always be people left unhappy no matter what so do what you can to improve your own situation.

Housing issues are a guaranteed biproduct of an economy doing well.

beauf

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Oh for God's sake, I wasn't saying anyone should be able to buy in Rathgar or that I wanted to! I was refuting the statement that 150K would get you a one bed 'in Dublin city' and making the point that there were only a few properties in that price range, and only in really bad areas. The reason I posted the Rathgar property was to show how little you get for even 200K anywhere remotely 'nice'.

That poster made a totally baseless statement that 'single people on average incomes' expect to buy 3 bed houses in Dublin city, and my point was that it would even be a stretch for such a person to buy a one-bed flat.

I think if you set the baseline as Rathgar, or "nice" you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot.

Wanderer78

Ush1 wrote: »

These discussions never go anywhere so I'll leave you with this. Housing is a complicated issue, with no simple fixes and there will always be people left unhappy no matter what so do what you can to improve your own situation.

Housing issues are a guaranteed biproduct of an economy doing well.

go again! housing issues are largely policy based, and older generations have had many in their favor, particularly over the last few decades, as i have, but of course they did have policies that also worked against them, making it harder, but maybe not as hard as younger generations

Ush1

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Oh for God's sake, I wasn't saying anyone should be able to buy in Rathgar or that I wanted to! I was refuting the statement that 150K would get you a one bed 'in Dublin city' and making the point that there were only a few properties in that price range, and only in really bad areas. The reason I posted the Rathgar property was to show how little you get for even 200K anywhere remotely 'nice'.

That poster made a totally baseless statement that 'single people on average incomes' expect to buy 3 bed houses in Dublin city, and my point was that it would even be a stretch for such a person to buy a one-bed flat.

You ignoring my posts is both disengenious and tragic.

You want to be able to buy in Rathgar which is "normal"(by definition of property values, it isn't).

PokeHerKing

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Oh for God's sake, I wasn't saying anyone should be able to buy in Rathgar or that I wanted to! I was refuting the statement that 150K would get you a one bed 'in Dublin city' and making the point that there were only a few properties in that price range, and only in really bad areas. The reason I posted the Rathgar property was to show how little you get for even 200K anywhere remotely 'nice'.

That poster made a totally baseless statement that 'single people on average incomes' expect to buy 3 bed houses in Dublin city, and my point was that it would even be a stretch for such a person to buy a one-bed flat.

You're completely delusional, it's one of the most salubrious postcodes in the country. The fact you're using it in your argument at all shows your mentality.

Ush1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

go again! housing issues are largely policy based, and older generations have had many in their favor, particularly over the last few decades, as i have, but of course they did have policies that also worked against them, making it harder, but maybe not as hard as younger generations

There's no going again, there are many factors.

Wanderer78

Ush1 wrote: »

There's no going again, there are many factors.

you are indeed correct, one of the main being, policies that have encouraged, 'asset price inflation'!

lainey_d_123

beauf wrote: »

I think if you set the baseline as Rathgar, or "nice" you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot.

It's not a baseline. I just noticed how tiny the property was for 200K. People obsessing about Rathgar are missing the point I was making, which is that saying a single professional expects to buy a 3-bed flat in Dublin city is simply ridiculous. Most single professionals would be more than happy with a one-bed somewhere reasonably nice and safe - even that is a stretch these days.

lainey_d_123

PokeHerKing wrote: »

You're completely delusional, it's one of the most salubrious postcodes in the country. The fact you're using it in your argument at all shows your mentality.

I don't have a 'mentality'.

I set the price at 200K and had a quick scan of what came up. My point was that that's how high you have to go to have a realistic choice of one-bed properties to choose from, and most of those are nowhere near the city centre.

My point is that contrary to what was said, there are hardly any flats priced at 150K, and those that do exist are in some of the worst areas of the city.

Why is it so hard to grasp?

dubrov

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's not a baseline. I just noticed how tiny the property was for 200K. People obsessing about Rathgar are missing the point I was making, which is that saying a single professional expects to buy a 3-bed flat in Dublin city is simply ridiculous. Most single professionals would be more than happy with a one-bed somewhere reasonably nice and safe - even that is a stretch these days.

Rathgar is probably one of the most expensive places to live in the whole country. It is certainly not reflective of a normal suburb in Dublin

Geuze

It is true that people in the 1980s faced much higher income tax rates and mortgage interest rates.

However, although their living standards in terms of consumer goods and services was lower than now, they were able to buy bigger houses than the equivalent worker now.


Take my parents, and my friends parents as examples, in the period 1975-1985.

On one income, many of these people could buy houses that a person in the same job could not buy now.

My parents house is worth maybe 300k now, could a one-earner family on 50-55k buy it now? That wouldn't be easy.


They didn't have smartphones, foreign holidays (other than UK sometimes), but house prices were lower relative to incomes.




Some causes of these changes:

more pop growth now
low interest rates allow people to borrow more, adding to demand
higher disp incomes now add to demand
land costs are way too high now

Yurt2

There will be day of reckoning with housing in this country, I'm fairly certain of it. Those that currently benefit from current arrangements can afford to shrug their shoulders for now, but those shut-out and negatively effected are growing by the year. Unless the main poltical parties smarten up their act (and there have been a lot of policy proposals around this from civil society, economists etc that have been implemented in other countries), we'll see the political sands shift in a way that will make those talking of avocado toast and Netflix very hot under the collar indeed.

dubrov

Geuze wrote: »

It is true that people in the 1980s faced much higher income tax rates and mortgage interest rates.

However, although their living standards in terms of consumer goods and services was lower than now, they were able to buy bigger houses than the equivalent worker now.


Take my parents, and my friends parents as examples, in the period 1975-1985.

On one income, many of these people could buy houses that a person in the same job could not buy now.

My parents house is worth maybe 300k now, could a one-earner family on 50-55k buy it now? That wouldn't be easy.


They didn't have smartphones, foreign holidays (other than UK sometimes), but house prices were lower relative to incomes.




Some causes of these changes:

more pop growth now
low interest rates allow people to borrow more, adding to demand
higher disp incomes now add to demand
land costs are way too high now

High interest rates were a huge factor in this.
If interest rates went to 15%, you can be fairly sure house prices would drop to low multiples of income.

CrankyHaus

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's not a baseline. I just noticed how tiny the property was for 200K. People obsessing about Rathgar are missing the point I was making, which is that saying a single professional expects to buy a 3-bed flat in Dublin city is simply ridiculous. Most single professionals would be more than happy with a one-bed somewhere reasonably nice and safe - even that is a stretch these days.

Dude, don't waste your time.


You could spend a year writing a perfectly researched and peer-reviewed analysis of this issue and the same people would be coming back with lines about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and avocado-toast.



People who benefit from an inequitable status-quo that's not remotely sustainable will turn reality upside down and logic inside-out to justify maintaining it.



Whatever they write, what they really mean is "I'm all right Jack, **** you".

lainey_d_123

dubrov wrote: »

Rathgar is probably one of the most expensive places to live in the whole country. It is certainly not reflective of a normal suburb in Dublin

Can we MOVE ON from Rath FCKING Gar? The entire point I was making was that 150K isn't realistic for a one-bed in an area which is either nice OR reasonably close to the city centre.

This place is 185K https://www.daft.ie/dublin/houses-for-sale/dublin-8/15-maxwell-street-dublin-8-dublin-2707192/

One-bed, tiny run down looking place which needs doing up in Dublin 8.

Or are you going to tell me now that Dolphin's Barn is the epitome of fancy and that I'm just so spoiled and entitled to think I could ever dream of owning this beautiful home in such a lovely area?