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

Softening house market?

Options
16162646667145

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,689 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    I've wondered about this myself. There was a sharp fall in the markets in early 2020 due to uncertainty about the pestilence. It went away when the lockdowns started and the money printing really got underway. What I'd love to know, and we never shall, is what would have happened without the torrent of funny money.

    As a general point, it seems to me that little of the Western model of neoliberalism / globalism seems especially sustainable. Even without the very questionable financial side of things, the damage to the environment alone is ruinous, and I don't have any faith that driving Teslas and eating crickets is a solution.



  • Administrators Posts: 53,836 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Likely the same thing would have happened.

    During lockdown, the house hunting demographic did not lose their jobs, and they did not suffer a cut in income. They were earning the same money but couldn't spend it. It was a savers dream.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    I think the constant requirement for "growth" or "profits" is the key issue and I'd agree with you on that general comment.

    There are a hell of a lot of jobs nowadays that don't necessarily produce anything of "value" either - I'd be concerned about this angle but look - that's got little to do with housing .



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,689 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Maybe, but with no printing of money, there could have been no lockdown, so I suppose it's all just speculation.

    Yes. I've been warned before about straying too much into economics :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Not at all. That would be a bit like someone saying in 2008 that there would be no recession even if everyone in construction lost their jobs because loads of people worked in other industries.



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators Posts: 53,836 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    I have to admit, you've completely lost me here.

    What has this got to do with recession?



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    It's an analogy. You appear to be basically saying that if the supports had not been put in at that time, that the housing market would still be the same today. That is not plausible.

    Even over in the US. Printed loads of money. Interest rates back down to zero. Stimulus cheques poured into the stock market and the combination drove the markets up massively. US is putting rates back up again and we are seeing tech companies bringing in hiring freezes. Growth companies soar during times of low interest rates. Because there is very little discounting for all those future cash flows.

    No goverment supports here would have meant a lot of people losing their jobs. Not being able to afford rent/mortgages. Not buying luxuries and hence more job losses. Housing would have decreased rather than increased.



  • Administrators Posts: 53,836 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    No government supports would have meant people losing jobs, yes.

    But the house buying demographics were not on government supports.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    There were two types of supports. PUP to the person, and supports to employers.

    It would not be correct to assume that everyone who is buying a house now, who did not receive PUP and whose employer did not receive any supports, would have kept their job. In the same way as how non-Construction workers lost their jobs when construction crashed in the last recession.

    As already pointed out in the post - Global tech are implementing freezes. Part of this is due to rising rates over in the US. Something which was just starting to happen, but was reversed when the pandemic came in. If you remember (or even look at a graph), markets around the world crashed fairly rapidly and only recovered rapidly when money got pumped back in. Respected economists were advising people not to "buy the dip" expecting a quick recovery. They were wrong, but only because of government intervention



  • Administrators Posts: 53,836 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    I know there were two types of support.

    I am saying, the people who make up the overwhelming majority of the house buying demographic were:

    1. Not put on PUP
    2. Not working for employers that had to close or scale back during the pandemic and avail of government supports.

    It is unclear to me how this can even be a point of debate. We all saw what happened.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭Senature


    I think you are mistaken here. I work doing bookkeeping and accounts. Every one of my clients across a range of sectors availed of TWSS and/or EWSS. Some of the employees have since bought houses.

    There is a perception that only businesses that were closed for prolonged periods or involved in hospitality etc availed of these schemes. This is not the case at all. For example one of my clients is a healthcare provider.

    A quick google turned up a document published by Revenue listing employers who received payments under TWSS. It is over 2,500 pages long. Do you really think none of those employees have bought houses in the last 2.5 years?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,689 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Sectors beyond hospitality were affected by lockdowns too. Software companies that produced products for thie hospitality industry were naturally affected, but it went beyond that. I work in insurance, and I know of layoffs due to the loss of business in the industry, and that was with stimulus and supports in place.

    One thing is clear, however. The money printed during the lockdowns went straight into asset markets. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to assume that lockdowns with no supports in place would have caused a major economic incident. Of course, an enormous asset bubble is another problem, but what's the modern globalist world without a constant stream of existential crises? If nothing else, they provide the opportunity to change one's Twitter icon to support the current thing :D



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,631 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    Pretty sure banks weren't giving mortgages to employees whose employers were availing of government support (or had done in the previous 6 months?)



  • Registered Users Posts: 753 ✭✭✭dontmindme


    Yes, I'm pretty sure there are lots of posts on the mortgage thread where loan offers were rescinded when one of the loan applicants had to avail of PUP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 398 ✭✭jimmybobbyschweiz


    It's exactly why we are where we are. Low for too long and excessive, misdirected QE that went into assets, creating bubbles, rather than going into building sustainable societies and transitioning to greener economies. White, older men with their groupthink and stubbornness doubling down on their favourite method to fight a recession. I just hope the next round of QE goes towards building more sustainable economies and societies so the scourge of populism festering the last decade can be combatted.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭yagan


    I'm not sure what raising interest rates will do to fight commodity inflation when it's other growing economies in the world that are driving demand. The only thing I see raising interest rates doing is giving the public the notion that someone is in control, when all they can do is lower interest rates later and say "we're doing something". All they've done is hasten the recession that brings about reforms needed to compete against other regional economies driving commodity prices.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,689 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Imagine if Ireland had invested in non-fossil fuel power stations back in the 90s. We could have a few modern nuclear power plants up and running by now. However, the boomers wanted pensions, and we saw yesterday with the decision on the retirement age, they most certainly will be cashing them in...

    Regarding populism, I feel that there is a very great danger that worsening conditions could leave to either far-left or far-right extremism taking root in Europe. Ireland seems more likely to go the way of the former, but that may not be so elsewhere in Europe.

    I don't feel especially optimistic about the future...



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,413 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    I think poorly located houses are in trouble due to the cost of fuel- know a nice house in a tiny village (no school etc) and it’s been on the market since early June. Nothing. You’d have to drive literally everywhere. So reckon that’s quite a consideration especially as it’s in the €390k bracket.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,217 ✭✭✭Ubbquittious


    Those same boomers went on a mad spree of building houses and they inherited all their parents picturesque houses in the countryside that they're now just keeping empty and using as holiday homes. Then they have the gall to try and prevent the generation after them from building any new houses in the countryside citing environmental concerns. Yep that generation well and truly pulled the ladder up behind them.



  • Administrators Posts: 53,836 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 493 ✭✭Shauna677


    Should be no issue to the the "work from home brigade" as long as theres good broadband.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,413 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    I dunno I think it’s an issue for some places. Broadband ok I think but you’d literally have to drive everywhere. I guarantee if it was closer to a big town it would be snapped up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,689 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    The boomer generation has caused a lot of problems in the West, and I don't think that that is even a controversial thing to say. It doesn't mean that all boomers are "bad", but the decisions made as a result of their voting and under their tenure have left a lot of problems that younger generations now have to deal with.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,996 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    I think the boomer generation (of which I am not a member) is a convenient scapegoat in online discourse tbh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,483 ✭✭✭tigger123


    Politicians only react to what boomers want, because they will get out and vote.

    If more young people got up of their ar$e$ and voted, their voices would help shape public policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭markw7


    Yes because the "boomer generation" are completely different from other humans that came before or after them. Christ thats some crock of sh1t, as if other generations would have done any better.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The term boomer is the most pathetic attempt at discourse going.

    Nobody can even define what a boomer is or when they were born - in America it initially made sense as "Boomers" referred to the baby boomer generation - however in Ireland there simply is no parallel since our "baby boom" didnt happen until the early 80s - almost 25-30 years after the US' post-war baby boom.

    It is a nonsense term that adds nothing to the discussion other than makes the poster sounds like an angsty teenager.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,689 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Well, yes they were. The boomers were the first generation in a long time not to suffer through extreme hardship. The early part of the 20th century saw the two worst wars in human history and one of the worst economic downturns to boot. Those born after the Second World War saw none of this, and they grew up whilst the modern welfare state was on the rise.

    Humans are always human, bit the milieu in which we mature can and does have enormous influence on out mindsets and outlooks, and the world has changed greatly in the last few decades. If you want to believe that that this had no bearing on the outlook of that generation, so be it. I choose to believe otherwise, but I don't think that what you think is a "crock of sh1t" simply because I disagree.

    It's not a nonsense term. It is a useful, though I will grant you imprecise, term that is used to attempt to understand the past by categorisation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Everything you've said in that 1st paragraph about boomers does not apply at all to Irish people up until very recently.

    Only starting in the 90s was Ireland not in a period of "extreme hardship"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭markw7


    Yep the conditions produced the behaviour, vast majority of people will act a certain way in certain circumstances. Thats why I think the blaming of "boomers" is a red herring or crock of sh1t as I so eloquently put it, the vast majority of us would have behaved the same way imho.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement