Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

SmokyMo

cnocbui wrote: »

Buy a piece of land and then get some plans for a house and have a builder build it for you.

Unless you from county it is very hard. I have looked at building in wiklow couple years ago and was told unless you know someone on the council to forget about it.

SmokyMo

Marius34 wrote: »

I'm not talking about hyperinflation, so it will last quite for a while. I don't know what population has saving, but it's bigger than historical.

I wasnt talking about hyper either. but to your point on inflation, if you believe in inflation, then going by empirical evidence, previous inflation preceded by bubble popping.

timmyntc

Marius34 wrote: »

Many may delay their purchase due to lack of supply. If everyone will jump in a year, it would dry up supply very quickly, there are no that much of supplies.

People delay their purchase all the time due to lack of supply or being priced out which are two sides of the same coin. If there wasnt that demand in waiting then prices would plummet. It's not a new phenomenon and not something that would distort this market more than it already is

Marius34

SmokyMo wrote: »

I wasnt talking about hyper either. but to your point on inflation, if you believe in inflation, then going by empirical evidence, previous inflation preceded by bubble popping.

Inflation itself doesn't tell that it will create a bubble, there are many other conditions that form bubble, sometimes it results crash, sometimes not.
The conditions formed in previous crash, are very different from now. There might be similar situation evolving in a decade or so, but not in the coming years.
And I'm not expecting inflation as high as prior the credit crisis.

Marius34

timmyntc wrote: »

People delay their purchase all the time due to lack of supply or being priced out which are two sides of the same coin. If there wasnt that demand in waiting then prices would plummet. It's not a new phenomenon and not something that would distort this market more than it already is

Means household saving likely won't disappear as quick

timmyntc

Marius34 wrote: »

Means household saving likely won't disappear as quick

If they opt not to buy in the market then there will be no effect from the savings anyways

selassie

timmyntc wrote: »

Prices will go up slowly until the next election - investors might get spooked if SF get in and prices might fall a little bit then, but theres no reason to believe a crash like 08 will ever happen again.

08 happens again if the economy crashes again. The economy crashes if we lose the big tech and pharma FDI.

Sheeps

When Sinn Féin are in power, anyone who owns a house is going to see the value of their property rise, unless you're in one of the areas where they decide to lump in a load of 100% social housing developments.

JDD

Sheeps wrote: »

When Sinn Féin are in power, anyone who owns a house is going to see the value of their property rise, unless you're in one of the areas where they decide to lump in a load of 100% social housing developments.

Why do you think the prices of properties in general will rise in a SF scenario?

If SF do what they say they are going to do (which is debateable) I can see a general fall of prices across the board. They have said that:

- they'll tax land hoarding, which should mean that more land goes up for sale and land prices go down.

- they'll build social housing on state land. This should take a proportion of people out of HAP, which frees up apartments for non-HAP renters. Increasing the supply of rental properties should result in a reduction in rents.

- Rents reducing will decrease the attractiveness of property as an investment, and cash buyers (including funds) will look elsewhere to invest their cash.

- Taking cash buyers out of the market should reduce the demand, and therefore the price, of houses.

- Reducing the price of houses will, of course, make them less attractive to build. A reduction in land prices will offset that somewhat, but maybe not enough to keep construction firms interested. SF will need to get creative on that one, but given they are going to build their own social houses they should have a lot more transparency on whether it really is as expensive to build as the construction companies say it is.

Sheeps

JDD wrote: »

Why do you think the prices of properties in general will rise in a SF scenario?

If SF do what they say they are going to do (which is debateable) I can see a general fall of prices across the board. They have said that:

- they'll tax land hoarding, which should mean that more land goes up for sale and land prices go down.

- they'll build social housing on state land. This should take a proportion of people out of HAP, which frees up apartments for non-HAP renters. Increasing the supply of rental properties should result in a reduction in rents.

- Rents reducing will decrease the attractiveness of property as an investment, and cash buyers (including funds) will look elsewhere to invest their cash.

- Taking cash buyers out of the market should reduce the demand, and therefore the price, of houses.

- Reducing the price of houses will, of course, make them less attractive to build. A reduction in land prices will offset that somewhat, but maybe not enough to keep construction firms interested. SF will need to get creative on that one, but given they are going to build their own social houses they should have a lot more transparency on whether it really is as expensive to build as the construction companies say it is.

I think you're underestimating just how much private demand there is out there in the housing market (and not from investors). O'Broin and Sinn Féin have been objecting to every housing development under the sun over the last couple of years. The idea that there's a silver bullet to address the housing crisis is fantasy. There are so many different forms of housing needs, from apartments to family homes, to rental accommodation for transient workforce/stuents etc. Sinn Féin are tackling one of those (social housing) and they're hoping the changes they make to solve the perceived injustices in the housing industry today wont create a toxic development environment for the people they need to solve the other aspects of the housing situation. It'll become to impossible to get developers to actually come in and operate in this country.

The social housing the build will via the state will only go as far as addressing the current housing lists and people who qualify for them. The people who are on average incomes wont be included in that solution. They'll continue to have to rent long into the future. They'll be left with a bitter taste in their mouth after Sinn Féin. The lack of private supply is what will drive up the price of current homes.

I don't really have much hope for solutions from other parties either. I think the only answer is through de-regulation, cheapening building costs and getting as much supply in the market as possible. Building high density, tall buildings.

yagan

selassie wrote: »

08 happens again if the economy crashes again. The economy crashes if we lose the big tech and pharma FDI.

The property sector crashed, although I'm not sure if construction jobs now match the same level of 15% of the workforce like in the Bertie bubble.

Pharma has decades deep capital infrastructure so if it were just about tax they'd have gone to Hungary's for its 9% CTR.

yagan

Sheeps wrote: »

I think you're underestimating just how much private demand there is out there in the housing market (and not from investors). O'Broin and Sinn Féin have been objecting to every housing development under the sun over the last couple of years. The idea that there's a silver bullet to address the housing crisis is fantasy. There are so many different forms of housing needs, from apartments to family homes, to rental accommodation for transient workforce/stuents etc. Sinn Féin are tackling one of those (social housing) and they're hoping the changes they make to solve the perceived injustices in the housing industry today wont create a toxic development environment for the people they need to solve the other aspects of the housing situation. It'll become to impossible to get developers to actually come in and operate in this country.

The social housing the build will via the state will only go as far as addressing the current housing lists and people who qualify for them. The people who are on average incomes wont be included in that solution. They'll continue to have to rent long into the future. They'll be left with a bitter taste in their mouth after Sinn Féin. The lack of private supply is what will drive up the price of current homes.

I don't really have much hope for solutions from other parties either. I think the only answer is through de-regulation, cheapening building costs and getting as much supply in the market as possible. Building high density, tall buildings.

From what I understand those objections have been over the lack of social housing elements. In truth we all know the social housing caveats never get fulfilled and when they do they're rarely not integrated with main developments, thus creating more social isolation.

cnocbui

SmokyMo wrote: »

Unless you from county it is very hard. I have looked at building in wiklow couple years ago and was told unless you know someone on the council to forget about it.

In more modern and advanced countries, this doesn't go on, but it's currently still 1763 in Ireland, near as I can tell.

TheSheriff

selassie wrote: »

08 happens again if the economy crashes again. The economy crashes if we lose the big tech and pharma FDI.

Unlikely to happen.

Ace2007

TheSheriff wrote: »

Unlikely to happen.

Especially as Pascal stated we are keeping the 12.5% Corporation tax rate.

Timing belt

The housing market like all markets is based on fear and greed. At the moment we see the greed from the funds and the fear from buyers that they will be stuck in rent land. Unless there is some major change this will continue. When I say major change the only things that I can see on impacting are an increase in supply or if there is major emigration. And I can’t see either of those materializing in the near term. Even if the economy tanks due to tax legislation I don’t see it impacting as people still need somewhere to live. As a previous poster said there is no magic bullet to fix this.

theboringfox

Timing belt wrote: »

The housing market like all markets is based on fear and greed. At the moment we see the greed from the funds and the fear from buyers that they will be stuck in rent land. Unless there is some major change this will continue. When I say major change the only things that I can see on impacting are an increase in supply or if there is major emigration. And I can’t see either of those materializing in the near term. Even if the economy tanks due to tax legislation I don’t see it impacting as people still need somewhere to live. As a previous poster said there is no magic bullet to fix this.

Only two things I can see reducing or stabilising prices and that is increased supply and rising interest rates. The latter has biggest impact on house prices imo. Even since I got mortgage in 2016 the rate Im paying has come down a lot. That gives lot more buying power and makes it feel much more comfortable going to 3.5x (or more).

Timing belt

theboringfox wrote: »

Only two things I can see reducing or stabilising prices and that is increased supply and rising interest rates. The latter has biggest impact on house prices imo. Even since I got mortgage in 2016 the rate Im paying has come down a lot. That gives lot more buying power and makes it feel much more comfortable going to 3.5x (or more).

Rising interest rates would ease the pressure as funds would not be as keen on property and normal house buyers but it is unlikely to lead to an increase in supply with people being forced to sell. I don’t see rates rising in the short term as we have yet to see sustained inflation.

Bass Reeves

selassie wrote: »

08 happens again if the economy crashes again. The economy crashes if we lose the big tech and pharma FDI.

I do not know why people keep harping on about the 08-12 property crash. We have had property slowdowns before that most effected property by 10-15%. 08 has particular problems, we had build up a huge housing excess, the banks has massive exposure to property not just in Ireland, a large cohort of investors had property not just in Ireland but right across Europe especially Poland and Spain. The vast amount of property was highly geared and those within the Construction industry were those most exposed. We had also build up a huge excess stock of unsold property owned by larger developers, solicitors, accountants, auctioneers, plasterers, plumbers , electricians etc that was borrowed from Irish banks

When the crash happened those investors lost a huge portion of there income and were unable to meet repayments. They were also exposed as banks had used personnel guarantees rather than good governance and looking at collateral and exposure when lending. The whole economy was exposed to the construction sector. When banks went looking for there money when payments stopped there was no buyer's. The economy literally floored as everything was being repossessed from cars to boats, every sort of construction machinery, houses, holiday homes etc. Banks found themselves with every sort of collateral that ended up being sold for anything from 20-60c in the euro. If you bought something today you could buy it cheaper tomorrow.

For those that are wanting for it to happen again.......be careful what you wish for

flexcon

cnocbui wrote: »

Buy a piece of land and then get some plans for a house and have a builder build it for you.

I was half way to doing this - and was told 18months before construction would start - they are so busy and lack of labour.

Ardillaun

With declining populations in the West and jobs being eaten up by automation and globalization, we may be facing low interest rates in the eurozone for a long time to come which will mean ever more borrowing to buy houses. Furthermore, the government is up to its oxters in debt already and has a personal stake in keeping house prices at least where they are if it ever wants to get out of the banking business. For these reasons among others, I’d be surprised if prices came down much unless there’s a global crash. And I seriously doubt that foreign investors are a fundamental cause of our woes. It’s a heartening sign that they still want to invest in Ireland.

Villa05

Ardillaun wrote:

With declining populations in the West and jobs being eaten up by automation and globalization, we may be facing low interest rates in the eurozone for a long time to come which will mean ever more borrowing to buy houses. Furthermore, the government is up to its oxters in debt already and has a personal stake in keeping house prices at least where they are if it ever wants to get out of the banking business. For these reasons among others, I’d be surprised if prices came down much unless there’s a global crash. And I seriously doubt that foreign investors are a fundamental cause of our woes. It’s a heartening sign that they still want to invest in Ireland.

It seems odd that declining populations has led to greater challenges in housing people in the west. Could the greater financialization of housing be a significant contributing factor. Automation has led to reduced costs in almost every aspect of our lives, yet, housing which everyone on the planet needs appears to have escaped this. Very strange

Those investment funds are very lucky to have so many cheerleaders about while they monopolise high demand areas and extract maximum rent from our children, bleed the country of its wealth and further increase the debt and unsustainability of the nation. Herartning indeed

I suspect the days of traditional retail banks may be numbered. Revolut and others are fast eroding their business model

Investment funds alone may not be the problem, letting them run riot may not be good as we saw with the banks 15 years ago

M_Murphy57

jill_valentine wrote: »

I don't know if I'm raving, but an awful lot of houses seem to have showed up yesterday around Limerick and Cork in particular.

Maybe some people thought WFH was forever and decided they were leaving dublin only for their employer to announce they are expected in the office a couple days a week.

JimmyVik

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Maybe some people thought WFH was forever and decided they were leaving dublin only for their employer to announce they are expected in the office a couple days a week.

Better to hear that before you move than after

C14N

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Maybe some people thought WFH was forever and decided they were leaving dublin only for their employer to announce they are expected in the office a couple days a week.

I imagine this may have happened a lot more than people expected. Despite spending the last 14 months or so working exclusively from home (which I think may have convinced many at my place that this would be something they could do indefinitely) the talk at my workplace is still to expect a return to office in a few months. Will vary from one workplace to another, but I think the idea of offices having large numbers of employees working exclusively from home is still a ways off.

Sheeps

Many employers will go back to the office when they can. It's beneficial for smaller companies in particular, but larger companies (big 4, civil service etc) have committed (given up office leases etc) to working from home. So I think there will be demand in the employment market for people who want to work in a place that allows remote work and there will be more options available to employees.

I don't think the people who have bought during the pandemic in rural areas or far away from work are really too bad. They'll be able to switch employers to one that better suits their needs. I'm generalising here obviously.

JDD

Sheeps wrote: »

Many employers will go back to the office when they can. It's beneficial for smaller companies in particular, but larger companies (big 4, civil service etc) have committed (given up office leases etc) to working from home. So I think there will be demand in the employment market for people who want to work in a place that allows remote work and there will be more options available to employees.

I don't think the people who have bought during the pandemic in rural areas or far away from work are really too bad. They'll be able to switch employers to one that better suits their needs. I'm generalising here obviously.

I think there will be a small number of people who will get approval to WFH full time. A proportion of them will choose to move outside of Dublin and probably to the SE or West as you get the scenery as well as the dip in living costs.

A larger chunk of people (but possibly still the minority) will get approval for a hybrid arrangement. That means that it is less likely that cohort will move to Kerry or Sligo, but some of them might consider commuter towns instead of Dublin suburbs, if you are only going to be commuting two days a week. That should take some pressure off the suburbs inside the M50 and of course there is much more room to build if it turns out there is increased demand in that area.

Will that have a significant effect on Dublin house prices? Probably not given all the other factors that are overheating it, but it will at least have somewhat of a dampener effect.

C14N

Sheeps wrote: »

Many employers will go back to the office when they can. It's beneficial for smaller companies in particular, but larger companies (big 4, civil service etc) have committed (given up office leases etc) to working from home. So I think there will be demand in the employment market for people who want to work in a place that allows remote work and there will be more options available to employees.

I don't think the people who have bought during the pandemic in rural areas or far away from work are really too bad. They'll be able to switch employers to one that better suits their needs. I'm generalising here obviously.

I'm sure some will, but I still don't envy anyone who bought a house in the countryside expecting they could WFH permenantly and is only finding out that their current employer will not allow that. It's true they'll probably find something, but they'll be searching for a job from a position of desperation rather than strength.

Knex*

If the big4 and tech companies start allowing WFH as the norm, and the demand is there for it, the smaller companies will likely have to follow suit to attract talent.

Amadan Dubh

Knex* wrote: »

If the big4 and tech companies start allowing WFH as the norm, and the demand is there for it, the smaller companies will likely have to follow suit to attract talent.

I agree. I posted it the other week that there is definitely a first mover advantage there at the moment to attract talent by putting your WFH policy out into the open and making it as flexible as possible, to suit the needs and wants of existing and potential employees. From talking to friends who seemed to have the WFH situation where they ended up working longer hours and where bonuses were delayed or withheld, I can see they are now considering their future with their companies. There is going to be a cohort looking to move as soon as things get back to normal, to get the greater flexibility, even from non-typical flexible sectors like law or finance.

My own company had WFH sprung on everyone due to covid as there had been no WFH before then. However, despite some claims by managers I spoke with last summer about "returning to the office", it looks like they are starting to formulate a longer term "mostly" WFH policy. For me, last summer I would've said 3 days in the office, 2 WFH would be ideal but the more time has gone the more I'm personally leaning to almost full time WFH with maybe a visit to the office to see my team once every two weeks or even once a month. This could be a factor longer term in my decision to stay with the company or not, that is quite a significant change in my view of WFH.

Bass Reeves

Knex* wrote: »

If the big4 and tech companies start allowing WFH as the norm, and the demand is there for it, the smaller companies will likely have to follow suit to attract talent.

This is it if large company start to allow WFH, however most may want you to be into the office 1-2 days( maybe more 10-12 hours a week) it will put pressure on other employers. FDC the accountants firm I use are WFH at present, it seems to be working well. I cannot see accountants, solicitors etc going back into the office full-time.

However it's unlikely if your company is based in Dublin that you will move 120-150 miles away. Places off the motorway s will become very popular, Birr, Nenagh, Roscrea, Thurles are all easily commutable 1-2 days a week.

However remember both people need to be WFH sonic your partner is a hospital based medical professional, a Guard or a teacher you will stl need to locate nearer Dublin.

Amadan Dubh

Bass Reeves wrote: »

This is it if large company start to allow WFH, however most may want you to be into the office 1-2 days( maybe more 10-12 hours a week) it will put pressure on other employers. FDC the accountants firm I use are WFH at present, it seems to be working well. I cannot see accountants, solicitors etc going back into the office full-time.

However it's unlikely if your company is based in Dublin that you will move 120-150 miles away. Places off the motorway s will become very popular, Birr, Nenagh, Roscrea, Thurles are all easily commutable 1-2 days a week.

However remember both people need to be WFH sonic your partner is a hospital based medical professional, a Guard or a teacher you will stl need to locate nearer Dublin.

As a society it would be better to get rid of the WFH desk job employees from Dublin and instead replace them with Gardai, hospital staff etc. I sympathise a lot with those workers who cannot WFH and are forced to live miles away from their place of work due to cost of living, while hotels, coliving, €2k+ BTL apartments spring up in the City instead of affordable housing.

Sheeps

Knex* wrote: »

If the big4 and tech companies start allowing WFH as the norm, and the demand is there for it, the smaller companies will likely have to follow suit to attract talent.

I really don't think so. I think you will have some employers who do, and some employers who don't, and you'll have plenty of choices as an employee. I don't think we're going to be in a situation where everyone is one or the other. It doesn't have to be that way. Having recently bought in Donabate, where the commute into the city centre isn't too bad, I'm happy enough with that outcome. I'll be working remotely for the foreseeable future, but I can probably live with having to make the journey into town once or twice a week. It'll probably be less frequent than that though.

Mic 1972

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I agree. I posted it the other week that there is definitely a first mover advantage there at the moment to attract talent by putting your WFH policy out into the open and making it as flexible as possible, to suit the needs and wants of existing and potential employees.

My own company had WFH sprung on everyone due to covid as there had been no WFH before then. However, despite some claims by managers I spoke with last summer about "returning to the office", it looks like they are starting to formulate a longer term "mostly" WFH policy. For me, last summer I would've said 3 days in the office, 2 WFH would be ideal but the more time has gone the more I'm personally leaning to almost full time WFH with maybe a visit to the office to see my team once every two weeks or even once a month. This could be a factor longer term in my decision to stay with the company or not, that is quite a significant change in my view of WFH.

The thing is, it's not convenient for a company to keep an office for the monthly meetings only. And full time WFH requires the implementation of additional processes and structures that often limit flexibility.
On top of that it's a fairly alienating environment after a while

Amadan Dubh

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The thing is, it's not convenient for a company to keep an office for the monthly meetings only. And full time WFH requires the implementation of additional processes and structures that often limit flexibility.
On top of that it's a fairly alienating environment after a while

Full time WFH for a year and a half is arguably the norm. Processes and structures are already in place. Going forward, companies will likely need to experience some trial and error to see what works so I don't expect a longer term picture to emerge overnight. But I do think that companies going more flexible are far more likely to attract new staff in the short term than companies advertising that they are going zero WFH post-covid!

JohnnyChimpo

Seems pretty inevitable that big companies are not going to bother renewing leases on their big HQs (1000+ capacity), and instead will just have a stake in some flexible workspaces that will allow them to host ops meetings, onboarding, training sessions, and visitors. For my company it's still being emphasised that there is no expectation of any commitment to a minimal presence in the office

DataDude

Sheeps wrote: »

I really don't think so. I think you will have some employers who do, and some employers who don't, and you'll have plenty of choices as an employee. I don't think we're going to be in a situation where everyone is one or the other. It doesn't have to be that way. Having recently bought in Donabate, where the commute into the city centre isn't too bad, I'm happy enough with that outcome. I'll be working remotely for the foreseeable future, but I can probably live with having to make the journey into town once or twice a week. It'll probably be less frequent than that though.

With over 95% of employees demanding hybrid working (and the preference is shifting more and more toward remote), I think it'll become close to impossible to attract staff without a generous WFH policy. There's just not enough people who want to be in the office full time for a few niche companies to be in-office only.

I'm aware of at least one company who made an executive decision that "we will be an in office based company, no WFH"....3 months later they had to completely roll back their decision because they had 5 consecutive job offers turned down.

Obviously won't work for every sector, but in the higher paid industries I honestly think flexible working will become as standard as a pension contribution or health care contribution.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0517/1222236-work-from-home-survey/

C14N

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

Seems pretty inevitable that big companies are not going to bother renewing leases on their big HQs (1000+ capacity), and instead will just have a stake in some flexible workspaces that will allow them to host ops meetings, onboarding, training sessions, and visitors. For my company it's still being emphasised that there is no expectation of any commitment to a minimal presence in the office

Depends on the company too though. Many tech and pharma companies have very strict IP protocols. I used to work at Intel, for example, and they were very cautious about any IP being able to leave the building in any form. I have friends who work at various pharma and chemical companies who have had similar experiences and had to get exceptions to be able to come into the office to work even during the high-level lockdowns. I don't imagine they'll necessarily want to make the savings there. I don't know what companies were doing it, but I do also remember seeing huge numbers of taxis for some companies in Sandyford bringing employees to and from work during the heavy lockdowns when I used to live there.

To some extent, I wonder also if there are any trends among which cohorts are most keen to have a WFH setup. I'd imagine its more popular with parents than non-parents for example, as it allows a lot more flexibility for tending to kids. At my work we also hire a lot of graduate and intern-level employees, and I have to imagine that face-to-face work is more valuable for junior-level staff like that as you have an easier time getting to know your colleagues and learning how to work. I came in at that level and am now the one mentoring the new junior staff, and I don't envy them at all compared to the experience I was able to have.

Part of me also wonders if there might be a split in the types of workers who want to work from home vs in the office. I have to imagine that, over the long-term, networking and things like that are going to be much harder if you are mostly or entirely working from home, which has to limit career progression to some extent. Many people won't really care about that, either because they're happy at their current level and don't feel the urge to climb the corporate ladder, or maybe if they're independent contractors who don't really have that option anyway, but at the same time there will probably be people who will very much want to be present with their colleagues and probably also some companies who feel like those are the types of employees they want to attract, especially for smaller or startup companies who need to be extra competitive.

Mic 1972

DataDude wrote: »

With over 95% of employees demanding hybrid working (and the preference is shifting more and more toward remote), I think it'll become close to impossible to attract staff without a generous WFH policy. There's just not enough people who want to be in the office full time for a few niche companies to be in-office only.

I'm aware of at least one company who made an executive decision that "we will be an in office based company, no WFH"....3 months later they had to completely roll back their decision because they had 5 consecutive job offers turned down.

Obviously won't work for every sector, but in the higher paid industries I honestly think flexible working will become as standard as a pension contribution or health care contribution.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0517/1222236-work-from-home-survey/

Hybrid working is a very lose term. Sounds like most people want the best of both worlds without having to commit to either.
WFH requires an office space, which in many case has to be quiet, protected and in line with confidentiality protocols. Internet must be good at all times. IT support wont pop over to your desk when you have issues, everything must be resolved by yourself.

People living in sharing environments wil probably struggle with that

Blowfish

JDD wrote: »

Will that have a significant effect on Dublin house prices? Probably not given all the other factors that are overheating it, but it will at least have somewhat of a dampener effect.

It is having an effect on the commuter towns though, the last Daft report for Q1 has prices in Dublin up 6.9% year on year, with the rest of Leinster being up 12%.

JohnnyChimpo

C14N wrote: »

Depends on the company too though. Many tech and pharma companies have very strict IP protocols. I used to work at Intel, for example, and they were very cautious about any IP being able to leave the building in any form. I have friends who work at various pharma and chemical companies who have had similar experiences and had to get exceptions to be able to come into the office to work even during the high-level lockdowns. I don't imagine they'll necessarily want to make the savings there. I don't know what companies were doing it, but I do also remember seeing huge numbers of taxis for some companies in Sandyford bringing employees to and from work during the heavy lockdowns when I used to live there.

To some extent, I wonder also if there are any trends among which cohorts are most keen to have a WFH setup. I'd imagine its more popular with parents than non-parents for example, as it allows a lot more flexibility for tending to kids. At my work we also hire a lot of graduate and intern-level employees, and I have to imagine that face-to-face work is more valuable for junior-level staff like that as you have an easier time getting to know your colleagues and learning how to work. I came in at that level and am now the one mentoring the new junior staff, and I don't envy them at all compared to the experience I was able to have.

Part of me also wonders if there might be a split in the types of workers who want to work from home vs in the office. I have to imagine that, over the long-term, networking and things like that are going to be much harder if you are mostly or entirely working from home, which has to limit career progression to some extent. Many people won't really care about that, either because they're happy at their current level and don't feel the urge to climb the corporate ladder, or maybe if they're independent contractors who don't really have that option anyway, but at the same time there will probably be people who will very much want to be present with their colleagues and probably also some companies who feel like those are the types of employees they want to attract, especially for smaller or startup companies who need to be extra competitive.

You're right - I should have said "many" big companies, it obviously depends. anecdotally, I work for a Big Pharma and there's no pressure to return to office, and I'd be willing to bet they dont renew the lease.

As another anecdote, I've actually found it's the people with kids who are more keen to get back to the office. Seems counter-intuitive with the hassle of childcare, but I can only imagine how hard it is to get focused work done and parent at the same time

Amadan Dubh

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

You're right - I should have said "many" big companies, it obviously depends. anecdotally, I work for a Big Pharma and there's no pressure to return to office, and I'd be willing to bet they dont renew the lease.

As another anecdote, I've actually found it's the people with kids who are more keen to get back to the office. Seems counter-intuitive with the hassle of childcare, but I can only imagine how hard it is to get focused work done and parent at the same time

Yes, the people with kids that are in school (Gen X and baby boomers) are desperate to get back to the office but those in their 20s and 30s aren't. My own experience is that two of us settled, no kids yet, in our 30s want almost 100% wfh and our colleague in 20s and not settled isn't pushed but wants to be able to take a full week or two here or there to go away somewhere.

I have a strong opinion that someone in their 50s should not have a strong influence on the WFH policy going forward post - covid, it should be very much driven by those in their 20s,30s and 40s.

C14N

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

You're right - I should have said "many" big companies, it obviously depends. anecdotally, I work for a Big Pharma and there's no pressure to return to office, and I'd be willing to bet they dont renew the lease.

As another anecdote, I've actually found it's the people with kids who are more keen to get back to the office. Seems counter-intuitive with the hassle of childcare, but I can only imagine how hard it is to get focused work done and parent at the same time

That's interesting. I don't really have any close friends with kids, but I was under the impression that parents were generally keen to get kids back to school and out of the house, but once that was done then a WFH posture would be easier for them. When I was a kid my dad was occasionally able to work from home on an ISDN line which was helpful in giving some extra flexibility for bring us to and from school.

I also definitely think willingness to WFH will depend on your home situation though. If you don't have a office space or even a desk and are stuck working on a kitchen table with others, or from a bed, it's going to be a much worse experience in terms of comfort and productivity. It's a bit of a different story if you have an extra room in the house or even just a dedicated computer desk and chair to sit at. Having moved during the lockdown, this was actually a big concern for us. Most 2-bed apartments come with a fully furnished second bedroom and we specifically looked for places that would allow us to use the second room instead as an office.

SmokyMo

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Yes, the people with kids that are in school (Gen X and baby boomers) are desperate to get back to the office but those in their 20s and 30s aren't. My own experience is that two of us settled, no kids yet, in our 30s want almost 100% wfh and our colleague in 20s and not settled isn't pushed but wants to be able to take a full week or two here or there to go away somewhere.

I have a strong opinion that someone in their 50s should not have a strong influence on the WFH policy going forward post - covid, it should be very much driven by those in their 20s,30s and 40s.

I work in a big tech, know lot of people in 30s who work for various tech MNC, they all want to go back. All our new hires, (in their 20s), answered over 90% that they want to be in the office. We worked hybrid model before so wfh couple days a week is not a novelty for people in tech.
Also in various all hands, board stated that permanent wfh wont be available. I suspect its across the board.

People over estimating this wfh desire... same as they thought first lockdown and covid will done and dusted within a month.

You can read recent paper on productivity in IT, productivity declined by 20%, while working hours increased by 30% during covid. Those with children affected the most.
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/BFI_WP_2021-56.pdf

What I do envision, is tech offices moving away from Dublin city center if more and more of workforce lives in commuter towns. Commute is only getting worse and employees wont accept to sit in traffic for 2+ hours each way to be at the desk for 9am call.

DataDude

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Internet must be good at all times. IT support wont pop over to your desk when you have issues, everything must be resolved by yourself.

People living in sharing environments wil probably struggle with that

I guess it's a good thing that every company in the world got an 18 month trial run to be sure it works so!

SmokyMo wrote: »

People over estimating this wfh desire... same as they thought first lockdown and covid will done and dusted within a month.

It's actually the complete opposite to this. Countless surveys across all companies and all sectors are resoundingly showing unbelievably strong desire to WFH pretty much across the board.

And when the first results came out last year, people thought it was a fad and people would get sick of it...nope the desire is even stronger again a year later.

I've found people who want to be office based actively seek out like minded people who agree with them (like most things I guess) and thus overestimate it's prevalence. The stats are clear - 3 days from home seems the most popular, but the number of people who want 5 days WFH outnumber those who want full office based work by many multiples.


https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0517/1222236-work-from-home-survey/
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/survey-finds-huge-appetite-for-remote-working-1.4326445

SmokyMo

DataDude wrote: »

I guess it's a good thing that every company in the world got an 18 month trial run to be sure it works so!



It's actually the complete opposite to this. Countless surveys across all companies and all sectors are resoundingly showing unbelievably strong desire to WFH pretty much across the board.

And when the first results came out last year, people thought it was a fad and people would get sick of it...nope the desire is even stronger again a year later.

I've found people who want to be office based actively seek out like minded people who agree with them (like most things I guess) and thus overestimate it's prevalence. The stats are clear - 3 days from home seems the most popular, but the number of people who want 5 days WFH outnumber those who want full office based work by many multiples.


https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0517/1222236-work-from-home-survey/
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/survey-finds-huge-appetite-for-remote-working-1.4326445

I think wfh is a general term, hybrid model has be around forever as I said nothing new. Id be shocked if big MNC didn't offer that before pandemic.
Its permanent 5 days wfh offer that I dont see happening. Thats just what I a see on ground, nothing to do with confirmation bias, but listening to all hands calls and asking my peers in other tech company's what their position since its a 'hot' topic. And this would be fairly global position. Of course unless you in support or not in business critical role, then maybe, but then over time you will be outsourced in future as part of optimization process.

I speculate, maybe, employers will chose to follow workforce to their location as oppose to allow them to be satellite workers full time.

Future will tell.

Edit: just read those links, they just confirm what everyone already knew and asked for anyway,that is a hybrid model, which essentially all tech places already offered in some capacity so once again nothing new there.

DataDude

SmokyMo wrote: »

I think wfh is a general term, hybrid model has be around forever as I said nothing new. Id be shocked if big MNC didn't offer that before pandemic.
Its permanent 5 days wfh offer that I dont see happening. Thats just what I a see on ground, nothing to do with confirmation bias, but listening to all hands calls and asking my peers in other tech company's what their position since its a 'hot' topic. And this would be fairly global position. Of course unless you in support or not in business critical role, then maybe, but then over time you will be outsourced in future as part of optimization process.

I speculate, maybe, employers will chose to follow workforce to their location as oppose to allow them to be satellite workers full time.

Future will tell.

Oh, I do agree with this for sure. Certainly in the short term anyway. My guess is that a combination of the Sustainability and D&I (the two biggest agenda items in most boardrooms these days) will increasingly push the WFH thing to the point it'll become rare to be in an office (think it'll be offsite teambuilding days etc.). But that's based on nothing but conjecture and is a long long way away if it happens at all.

Whilst I know a lot of companies in tech offered WFH previously. It wasn't widespread in Financial Services and if you did avail of it, it kinda flagged you as "not serious about your career" (not sure if also true in tech). I think that'll change quickly and thus we'll have a lot lot more people working 2-3 days from home in 2023 than we did in 2019.

In the context of the Irish Property market, this should be a bit of a release valve for supply/demand issues in Dublin. As others have suggested, there seems to be indications it's already a factor and think it'll only grow as companies confirm their plans and people get a chance to think about their futures.

mcsean2163

AFAIK, people in the government sector and company lifers want to work from home. It's a great way to get paid for SFA.

I wouldn't be happy paying people long term to WFH. Work from home 1 day a week fine, after that no.

I worked as a contractor, paid for results, as WFH and my experience was the WFH zoom schedule was extremely wasteful. I know older people can hack it because of experience/ motivation but long term it's a disaster. Unless your company has a monopoly, e.g. Google/ Facebook, if your company is talking about long term WFH, you're probably better looking for a new job before they go bust unless they are literally WFH geniuses.

If only the government could fire people, it'd be a great way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Amadan Dubh

There is also the important factor of the government policy to promote WFH, actively planning for legal, policy and infrastructure changes to ensure it becomes the norm going forward.

https://www.thejournal.ie/government-remote-working-explainer-5402646-Apr2021/#:~:text=It%20says%3A%20%E2%80%9CCurrently%20in%20Ireland,a%20request%20could%20be%20based.%E2%80%9D

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/32321-tanaiste-publishes-remote-working-strategy/

Mic 1972

DataDude wrote: »

I guess it's a good thing that every company in the world got an 18 month trial run to be sure it works so!

Not sure what your point is here, internet and IT issues do happen on a regular basis. When you work from home they are on you.