Building rates versus people numbers

Gradius

Relevant to Irish accommodation, I would like to understand an (perhaps simplified) interpretation of accommodation construction in Ireland.

There is a housing crisis, and all the negatives that go with it, from the quantifiable like affordability, to the unquantifiable like mental health.

Governments, plural, have been incessant about they are dealing with it for very many years now, yet the outcomes are ceaselessly uniform in failure.

I believe it is entirely valid to re-examine problems in the face of continued failure and re-appraise.

To the data:

2020
Accommodation built: 20'676
Net inward migration: 28'900

2019
Accommodation built: 21'241
Net inward migration: 33'700

2018
Accommodation built: 18'072
Net inward migration: 34'000

2017
Accommodation built: 14'446
Net inward migration: 19'800

And so on.

Is it not fair, or is it incorrect, to interpret all new accommodation builds as simply building for the accommodation of extra people?

And, notwithstanding that even THAT is insufficient, how is this approach to solve anything in the slightest for people already here?

Of course, not every unit built houses exactly one person, but the numbers aren't far removed.

I am entirely open to being corrected on my interpretation, perhaps I'm reading the information incorrectly, missing information, missing an angle. I look forward to hearing other people's views on this accommodation issue.

Atlantic Dawn

You also have to consider about 30k people die each year in Ireland too, their homes or rentals come on to the market.

athlone573

Gradius wrote: »

Relevant to Irish accommodation, I would like to understand an (perhaps simplified) interpretation of accommodation construction in Ireland.

There is a housing crisis, and all the negatives that go with it, from the quantifiable like affordability, to the unquantifiable like mental health.

Governments, plural, have been incessant about they are dealing with it for very many years now, yet the outcomes are ceaselessly uniform in failure.

I believe it is entirely valid to re-examine problems in the face of continued failure and re-appraise.

To the data:

2020
Accommodation built: 20'676
Net inward migration: 28'900

2019
Accommodation built: 21'241
Net inward migration: 33'700

2018
Accommodation built: 18'072
Net inward migration: 34'000

2017
Accommodation built: 14'446
Net inward migration: 19'800

And so on.

Is it not fair, or is it incorrect, to interpret all new accommodation builds as simply building for the accommodation of extra people?

And, notwithstanding that even THAT is insufficient, how is this approach to solve anything in the slightest for people already here?

Of course, not every unit built houses exactly one person, but the numbers aren't far removed.

I am entirely open to being corrected on my interpretation, perhaps I'm reading the information incorrectly, missing information, missing an angle. I look forward to hearing other people's views on this accommodation issue.

What about old people dying/downsizing /moving into nursing homes which frees up houses for young people and families.

Lots of that immigration is from the likes of Brazil and Poland and people working in Facebook and Google who won't necessarily be interested in buying.

Gradius

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

You also have to consider about 30k people die each year in Ireland too, their homes or rentals come on to the market.

Good point. So the natural increase in population is..

2020
Increase of 55'000

2019
Increase of 65'000

2018
Increase of 64'000

2017
Increase of 52'000

If the population were decreasing overall, deaths over births, then there could be some balance approached.

However, does this not simply leave the raw numbers in the original post untouched? Build 100 homes, an extra 150 people arrive, so to speak?

If anything, against a background of more people here needing even more accommodation naturally, how does the government(s) plan to "accommodate" this square-in-circle?

A sisyphean task?

Danzy

We don't have a housing crisis here. It's a crisis of aggressive inward population growth driven by extreme free market thinking, lack of housing is inevitable in this. Label it solidarity, Internationalism, diversity or whatever, in practice it is aggressive free market economics.


Changes by the greens to direct provision will take a significant portion of the housing out of the equation.

Given the scale of inward migration etc, it removes social housing as a solution.

Going back to building houses at Celtic tiger rates isn't a long term economic plan either.

That's the route they'll go though.

Gradius

athlone573 wrote: »

What about old people dying/downsizing /moving into nursing homes which frees up houses for young people and families.

Lots of that immigration is from the likes of Brazil and Poland and people working in Facebook and Google who won't necessarily be interested in buying.

There is a natural increase in the population already, so I think that becomes a moot point on births/deaths.

And transigent or not for multinationals, they have to live somewhere right now?

And to reiterate with the above in mind, the population is increasing year on year, so the transigent effect is negligible.

Gradius

Danzy wrote: »

We don't have a housing crisis here. It's a crisis of aggressive inward population growth driven by extreme free market thinking, lack of housing is inevitable in this. Label it solidarity, Internationalism, diversity or whatever, in practice it is aggressive free market economics.


Changes by the greens to direct provision will take a significant portion of the housing out of the equation.

Given the scale of inward migration etc, it removes social housing as a solution.

Going back to building houses at Celtic tiger rates isn't a long term economic plan either.

That's the route they'll go though.

Well, it IS a housing crisis right now, regardless of origin.

But examining the most basic numbers, is it fair to say that all new accommodation builds are simply to house people as yet unarrived?

Would that not explain the zero progress made in so many years, that the government, in effect, may as well be building houses in the UK for all the good it does here?

whisky_galore

athlone573 wrote: »

What about old people dying/downsizing /moving into nursing homes which frees up houses for young people and families.

Lots of that immigration is from the likes of Brazil and Poland and people working in Facebook and Google who won't necessarily be interested in buying.

People are living longer, I'd be surprised if deaths were passing out births, even covid notwithstanding.
Houses can lie empty for years between moving into a home and the person dying and then relatives deciding what to do with it, it's not like someone goes into a home and, boom, a ready to market inhabitable house.
Downsizing is govt manufactured codology, what are people supposed to downsize to??

athlone573

No I think its too simplistic

You probably want to look at the rate of "household formation" I.e. people (whencever they came) of an age to be settling down,this depends on the age profile of the population,in simple terms people born in the 80s /90s right now. I'm not going to quote stats but the CSO and ESRI look at it in those terms.

athlone573

Downsizing to council co living for the aged for example, more a Dublin thing.

Gradius

athlone573 wrote: »

No I think its too simplistic

You probably want to look at the rate of "household formation" I.e. people (whencever they came) of an age to be settling down,this depends on the age profile of the population,in simple terms people born in the 80s /90s right now. I'm not going to quote stats but the CSO and ESRI look at it in those terms.

But regardless of people settling down, they still have to live somewhere in the meantime, renting or buying, accommodation is accommodation, no?

If there are 100 homes built, and 120 extra people arrive from abroad, no matter here short or long term, there is an accommodation shortage.

If the government are telling the average Irish person, in effect, that they are building more homes to alleviate their problems BUT AT THE SAME TIME those new builds are insufficient to even house extra people arriving...what kind of problem solving is this?

As I said above, in essence, the government may as well be taking Irish taxpayers money and using it to build accommodation in the carribbean. It's not making any difference here whatsoever.

And it certainly casts a new light on all these announcements of new accommodation builds, to me, rendering them meaningless.

Some new information may be provided that I'm missing here to make sense of it all.

athlone573

Gradius wrote: »

But regardless of people settling down, they still have to live somewhere in the meantime, renting or buying, accommodation is accommodation, no?

If there are 100 homes built, and 120 extra people arrive from abroad, no matter heres short or long term, there is an accommodation shortage.

If the government are telling the average Irish person, in effect, that they are building more homes to alleviate their problems BUT AT THE SAME TIME those new builds are insufficient to even house extra people arriving...what kind of problem solving is this?

As I said above, in essence, the government may as well be taking Irish taxpayers money and using it to build accommodation in the carribbean. It's not making any difference here whatsoever.

And it certainly casts a new light on all these announcements of new accommodation builds, to me, rendering them meaningless.

Some new information may be provided that I'm missing here to make sense of it all.

Ah look you're probably right with your main point that more people are arriving than there are houses for

As a small open free market economy though its not the governments job to solve every problem

hometruths

Gradius wrote: »

Good point. So the natural increase in population is..

2020
Increase of 55'000

2019
Increase of 65'000

2018
Increase of 64'000

2017
Increase of 52'000

If the population were decreasing overall, deaths over births, then there could be some balance approached.

However, does this not simply leave the raw numbers in the original post untouched? Build 100 homes, an extra 150 people arrive, so to speak?

If anything, against a background of more people here needing even more accommodation naturally, how does the government(s) plan to "accommodate" this square-in-circle?

A sisyphean task?

Our population is increasing by approx 60k a year
the average household size is 2.75 people.
Thus we need about 22,000 new houses a year, which we are not too far off.

But we have about 200k vacant houses and our existing households are the most underoccupied in Europe.

Whatever the problem is, it’s not a Sisyphean task.

ThunbergsAreGo

athlone573 wrote: »

Ah look you're probably right with your main point that more people are arriving than there are houses for

As a small open free market economy though its not the governments job to solve every problem

I agree with both of you, however the media seem to totally ignore the population and lead with an investing narrative that anything bad that happens is the governments fault

KaneToad

Local authority property being left as the 'family home', long after the family have grown up and moved away, is an issue that should be tackled.

A four bed council house with only the matriarch in it is daft. There should be alternative, suitable, council property to downsize into...

Gradius

schmittel wrote: »

Our population is increasing by approx 60k a year
the average household size is 2.75 people.
Thus we need about 22,000 new houses a year, which we are not too far off.

But we have about 200k vacant houses and our existing households are the most underoccupied in Europe.

Whatever the problem is, it’s not a Sisyphean task.

Yes, however do you not see the bigger problem here?

The government(s) are using Irish tax payers money to, essentially, house people not even living here yet.

It's not simply a case that they aren't building enough, it's that what they are building is of zero benefit to the Irish population.

If they were the government of Hungary, fair enough. But they're supposed to be the government of this country, working to improve the lives of people in this country.

Yet every development popping up may as well, in effect, be for a foreign country.

So I'll say again, this appears sisyphean.

athlone573

What does sisyphean mean and how are the government building so many houses?

hometruths

Gradius wrote: »

Yes, however do you not see the bigger problem here?

The government(s) are using Irish tax payers money to, essentially, house people not even living here yet.

It's not simply a case that they aren't building enough, it's that what they are building is of zero benefit to the Irish population.

If they were the government of Hungary, fair enough. But they're supposed to be the government of this country, working to improve the lives of people in this country.

Yet every development popping up may as well, in effect, be for a foreign country.

So I'll say again, this appears sisyphean.

The bigger problem is the government is using taxpayers money to drive up prices and rents.

We are already building enough in terms of numbers, yet all the talking heads tell us we need to build more.

The two important questions are why is the government doing this and why is everybody swallowing it hook, line and sinker?

Heraclius

athlone573 wrote: »

What does sisyphean mean and how are the government building so many houses?

It means a task that can never be completed. See the myth of Sisyphus who was punished by the Gods by being forced to roll a rock up a hill which would then roll down so he had to start over again and again for eternity.

Gradius

athlone573 wrote: »

What does sisyphean mean and how are the government building so many houses?

It basically means breaking your balls for zero benefit.

They're building houses to accommodate people that are on the way, so to speak.

It has no effect on the housing crisis, yet the effort is going into it anyway.

Like, if you had 5 children to feed and not enough food to nourish them, you go to the shops for groceries and then arrive back to find 6 children, so you go to the shop again, come back to find 7 children...you're putting the effort in, but it's entirely to no end.

You're never going to have enough food, and meanwhile the original 5 children are still malnourished. All the extra shopping is for the benefit of the inevitable extra children.

Heraclius

schmittel wrote: »

The bigger problem is the government is using taxpayers money to drive up prices and rents.

We are already building enough in terms of numbers, yet all the talking heads tell us we need to build more.

The two important questions are why is the government doing this and why is everybody swallowing it hook, line and sinker?

A lot of people are sucked in by the increasing value of their own property and feel richer as a consequence. Landowners make more money when they sell and are delighted. It feels pretty foolish but it seems to be what a lot of society want.

athlone573

This is all leading down an anti immigration path which luckily we've escaped so far unlike the likes of Hungary and Austria.

Gradius

athlone573 wrote: »

This is all leading down an anti immigration path which luckily we've escaped so far unlike the likes of Hungary and Austria.

If it's all leading down an anti-immigration path, while the proposed solutions haven't had a positive effect over many, many years, maybe it's time to start avoiding the inevitable.

You can go through all the variations of 1+1 and try to make it arrive at 7, 29, 500'000, whatever, but if all points to the answer being 2, what then?

But it mightn't be that at all. Again, happy to hear new information on this to change my interpretation, I'm sure someone has it somewhere, because otherwise it would shine a light on something quite cruel.

Gradius

Janey Mack, I would have expected a lot more discussion, agreement/disagreement about what seems to be the root of the housing crisis in this country.

And if true, also spells out with crystal clarity that not only is the housing crisis not being tackled in the slightest, it never will in the future either.

A strange silence.

Well you keep trying to insist that its one house per person so tbh its not much point picking up the debate is it

Gradius

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you keep trying to insist that its one house per person so tbh its not much point picking up the debate is it

I literally said in the first post that I realise it isn't "1unit = 1 person".

I'll break those numbers down further if needed. But you'd imagine that if it were that simple to debunk, someone else would have already, wouldn't you?

Sounds like youre holding back on actual information, you should share.

Someone posted since that typical occupancy rates were 2.75 and you have continued apace

Mentioning it once in your first post then acting as if it werent so is hardly relevant

Whirl up a few more posts, but divided by 2.75 and we might see what things start to look like? Could be a good topic then.

tDw6u1bj

Ahh...regular as clockwork

This god-forsaken site never fails to shoe-horn bigoted nonsense into every topic.

Gradius

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone posted since that typical occupancy rates were 2.75 and you have continued apace

Mentioning it once in your first post then acting as if it werent so is hardly relevant

Whirl up a few more posts, but divided by 2.75 and we might see what things start to look like? Could be a good topic then.

That occupancy rate is unrelated to new builds, that's all homes ever built.

I'm having some trouble breaking down the numbers to "bedrooms built", if someone has a source for this it would be useful.

Gradius

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

Ahh...regular as clockwork

This god-forsaken site never fails to shoe-horn bigoted nonsense into every topic.

Have you ever considered that something that's been broken for years, combined with a direct corallary that's barely been allowed to be discussed for years, might be connected?

Or better yet, instead of trying to close down conversation on something that impacts all of us, you could contribute information? Just a thought.

ThunbergsAreGo

tDw6u1bj wrote: »

Ahh...regular as clockwork

This god-forsaken site never fails to shoe-horn bigoted nonsense into every topic.

Genuinely what is bigoted about saying have more people coming to the country and less houses being built might be contributing to our current housing issues?