Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1143144146148149809

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭RichardAnd



    A fair point, and you are correct. I wasn't trying to make the case that I'll never need social welfare, therefore I don't want to pay for it. On the contrary, I have no issue with welfare in theory, and I believe that those who find themselves in need of a helping hand through no fault of their own should receive help with dignity and respect.

    However, that is not what we have. Rather, we have a system that is growing year by year, costing more and delivering less. I do not see any of this as sustainable, and even if it were to be so, I do not want to leave such a country to the generations on the way up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals



    The results of the CB's public consultation on the rules will be interesting, although Varadkar was being populist wanting them looked at "asap" i think most sane people know this would be crazy letting them even go to 4.5x in a low supply environment



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭DataDude


    In a broad sense, yes. Assume you're getting at dereliction (number of housing falling out of use versus number of houses coming back to use) and changing household sizes/demographic shifts. Both are fairly slow moving beasts. Population change is by far the biggest driver of additional housing demand.

    Any impact of dereliction and household sizes would also have been occurring in 2019 and at a similar magnitude. So whatever way you slice it, in the equation of - the additional number of people in Ireland requiring housing vs the additional number of houses in Ireland, 2020-2021 was the best year in a long long time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,112 ✭✭✭yagan


    The system as is since the bank bailouts is a protected intergenerational transfer of wealth and targeting those marginalised by this iniquity.

    Those who don't enjoy the bank of mum and dad to access security of tenure are locked out of assert building. Even when Ireland was a dirt poor country on the north west fringe of industrial Europe as least the state was used to help the poorest build a capital wealth through home ownership.

    Many a TD who's a multiple property landlord came from state funded housing and education but the only lesson they valued from Irish history is that it's better to be a landlord than a tenant. The comfortable middle gives tacit approval while property values rise but demographically there's another negative swing on the horizon.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Just looking into this a bit more. If we take third level education to mean "skilled". 2020 the net inward migration of "skilled workers" was +33.6k (56.9 in, 23.3 out), the 2021 net inward migration of skilled workers was +10.1k (42.6 in, 32.5 out). In 2020 the net outward migration of unskilled workers was -2.9k in 2021 its -0.8k.

    So over the last year we have had a massive drop off in immigration because we had fewer skilled workers arriving in Ireland than previous years and more skilled workers leaving Ireland than in previous years ("brain drain"). The effect on unskilled workers has been fairly negligible.

    I know everyone needs a home and unskilled workers/unemployed people may be more likely to get housing through government routes, but I don't see how a shift away from inward skilled migration would be positive for housing demand? Or was this the point you were already making?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Yes...the British taught a certain cohort more than a few lessons.

    Hopefully a correct is sooner rather than later, for the longer it goes on, the more people will be sucked into the trap of owning a house bought for more than its worth.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    Depends what do you mean by the best year. Yes, the best year for lower population increase, but not the best to demands/supply.

    By Central Bank low case scenario, where net immigration is 10K, the estimated needs for yearly new supply is 26.5K (34K for immigration of 30K).

    For the latest report net immigration was 11.2K, means there should have been over 26.5K new supply, and Ireland had only 20K. Thus the pent-up demands has increased, and housing situation further got worst than previous years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    immigration of skilled workers into Ireland is good for the economy as they contribute to tax take, spend money in the community etc.. Yes this increases the demand for housing and the majority of these skilled workers jobs will be in the Dublin region so a reduction of immigrants should translate to a decrease in demand in this region. Outside of Dublin will see an increase in demand with returning Irish. My point was that changes in immigration have different impacts in different areas of the housing market.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    But now you have the REITs and councils buying up any available properties.

    So thats fine for renters (there are other issues there) and council tenants, but BAD for people who want to buy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,044 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    If they just stopped funds buying up estates, stopped councils from bidding against 1st time buyers and brought the endless amount of social housing boarded up back to a livable condition, that would go along way to making things affordable and ensuring supply.

    All this guff yesterday again are demand measures. Its a supply issue and they still don't get it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Amadan Dubh


    A very interesting article by Ronan Lyons in The Currency today, part of a series of articles he has been writing for them.

    He really takes issue with objectors to property developments and emphasises how increased supply is absolutely and inextricably linked to decreases in rents and prices.

    Extract below.

    Adjusting for inflation, what drove housing prices in Ireland between the 1970s and the 2010s, across different market ups and downs. My conclusion at the time (2013) was to highlight the role of credit conditions in driving up prices in the early 2000s. Given how things stand now, it is perhaps equally important to highlight the red bars, the impact of additional supply as it pulls down prices each and every year.



    Note the extraordinary impact of all the new homes built between 1995 and 2007. Every single year for 12 years, new supply being built was lowering real housing prices by roughly 5 per cent. Prices rose not because supply has no impact – or indeed because supply increases prices – but because there was not enough new supply to offset other factors pulling prices up, in particular rising incomes in the late 1990s and looser lending in the early 2000s.

    Everything else being equal, supply lowered prices by an astonishing 45 per cent between 1995 and 2007. Everything else was not, of course, equal but in certain parts of the country the impact of this extra supply, ultimately driven by tax breaks on build costs, was obvious in 2012 and is still obvious nearly a decade later.

    That analysis stops in 2012 and uses capital values but the same result is apparent from an analysis specifically of the rental sector and which continues to 2020: controlling for demand, more supply lowers rents. Intricate quantitative analysis is necessary to make these causal conclusions but can put some readers off.

    Fortunately, the same point can easily be shown with a simple scatterplot of rental supply in Dublin and subsequent changes in rents. This is shown below, and the pattern is striking: an additional 1,000 rental homes on the market typically push rents down by 5 per cent.


    Post edited by Amadan Dubh on


  • Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭lossless


    If a million new houses appeared overnight, already replete with a million new occupants, by how much has supply increased?


    This "build more" mantra, taken as it is in complete isolation of all other pertinent, glaring factors, has had it's day, nee years, in the sun.


    Coincidentally I just picked up a broadcast from the future, it's now the year of our Lord 2198, and people are talking about fixing the housing crisis in Ireland by building more homes. Sinn Gael says so. Weird!



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭lossless


    ...and other jokes to win friends".


    Seriously though, I couldn't tell you. I think they spontaneously exist out of the grass. If there was only a central repository of information on such things, even better if you could overlay such non-existent information over government promises through the years. It would potentially be possible to come to logical, reasonable conclusions as to how a housing crisis goes on, and on, and on, and on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Are you implying building more houses attracts net more people than the houses could be filled with?

    In that case we should just destroy houses instead, surely that will make things better if building more wont!



  • Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭lossless



    Yes, I am suggesting that the solution to the housing "crisis" is to destroy homes. An accurate and thoughtful interpretation, thank you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    There may have been a mantra of build more but that’s all it was as it didn’t translate to new properties actually being built.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    You were implying that there is no net benefit to building more homes as the labour market growth required to build them ends up swallowing any gain in dwellings, because the people who built them need to live somewhere.

    This is totally wrong - and following that logic, you might as well destroy homes as it would go as much good for prices as building them



  • Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭lossless


    Saying "that's totally wrong" with nowt back up is like screaming hallelujah at a hedgehog, it's confusing, less amusing and ultimately pointless.


    I suggest you look at the new housing plan (it's not new) and it's projected numbers of new housing, then look at the population policies and projections of the same government, over the exact same time period, and see if you notice something "peculiarly reminiscent" between the two as you go back and forth.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Amadan Dubh


    Considering half our immigration is from people who are from non-EU countries, it is certainly a possibility that we have more freedom to temper the numbers arriving on our shores. It would at least suppress some of the future demand for housing and give existing supply a chance to ramp up.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭lossless


    Just taking that prong of the trident alone, it is quite exemplary in showcasing the "planning" of these governments.


    They have reams of information available, thousands of people producing reports left and right, consultations on the ready, expertise on call, minutiae of projections, predictions, presentations. All happening every day of the week.


    So, when someone suggested, for the 10,000th time that "pErHapS ReDuCinG ExTRa PeOPLe wOulD hAVe a SigNifiCanT iMpacT on HoMe proVisIoN", and, for the 10,000th time they were told to shut their mouth...


    something that requires no effort, no construction, no planning, no disputes, no legal fees, no complications. A decision that requires them to only NOT do something...


    that tells you everything about their commitment to maintaining the housing crisis.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭lossless



    youll find quite a bit of information there, fill your cup. Edit, I tried to link to cso, but I'm not allowed. You'll find it if you go looking.


    For example, unless I read it too quickly, 23k of the 29k net migration last year, during a global pandemic, were neither from EU27, UK, America Canada or Australia.


    That's 79%.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You are claiming that 23,000 immigrants into Ireland last year were from non EU countries, the UK, America or Australia?

    Is that what you're saying?



  • Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭lossless


    No, that's not what I am saying, that is what the CSO has recorded. Seeing as I can't link to it, I'll transcribe...


    Net migration 2020

    5.3k UK

    1.6k Eu14 excluding Ireland

    Minus 0.4k EU15 to EU27

    0.2k Australia

    Minus 0.1k Canada

    Minus 0.5k USA

    22.7k rest of world

    Total migration of 29k


    In other words, 23k, 79% of all extra people who moved into Ireland last year were from "rest of the world". So much for "but the EU freedom of movement" excuse.


    Oh and about 20 odd thousand dwelling units were built in the same year. Curious in it's convenience, just like their "new housing plan".

    Post edited by lossless on


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So 23,000 people moved to Ireland in 2020? From outside the EU?



  • Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭lossless


    No. 29k moved to Ireland in total, Net. That means extra people.


    23k of those 29k were NOT from the Eu27, they were also NOT from USA, nor Australia, nor UK, nor Canada.


    Those 23k were from "rest of the world".


    How many different ways do you want me to answer the same question?



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That's exactly what I said? I'm not asking you to answer the same question.

    I find it very hard to believe.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,007 ✭✭✭Shelga


    Hi RichardAnd, just wanted to say I agree with everything you say here. I’m also 34 and feel the same. I’ve just been outbid yet again on another house, and I don’t know how much more of this process I can take, mentally. It’s soul-destroying. Lately when I’m on endless Teams call all day I find myself thinking- what’s the point? Why am I doing this? All of the other people on the call in their 40s and 50s have their own homes, partners, kids. I’m sitting in my childhood bedroom with no sign of anything changing.

    I feel like a failure even though I know it’s not me. How are you meant to date when you’re living at home for years on end and spending all of your spare time looking at dregs on Daft.

    I’m just so f*cking sick of it. Wish I had never come home from England tbh.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Hi Shelga,

    Thank you for the personalised reply. It sounds like we very much have the same situation, right down to the accursed MS Teams and the childhood bedroom.

    I'm living with my mom at the moment. I'm glad to be able to look after her as she gets older as my dad left her, but at the same time, I am poignantly aware that my own time is ticking away and producing little; just like the savings that I have accumulated. The very idea of dating doesn't even enter my mind and as for a family, why on earth bring a child into a world where I see little future for them?

    If there is one thing that provide a modicum of comfort it is that I at least now know that the game is rigged.



Advertisement