There's a reason why this generation is "worse off" than their parents

This all started not with people buying more than one house. But by privatisation of social and affordable housing while selling off public housing without replacing it.

It's that demand that's drowning the private supply. It's slowly creeping up the chain.

It's not the only issue. It's a multi faceted complex problem.

That's great and I think it's a smart policy.

But the vast majority of people who invest in property in Ireland only have one extra property. Occasionally two. They aren't hoovering up supply, in fact they are leaving the market.

It's the lack of public & social housing distorting the market. It's consuming the private rental supply.

Govt policies are constricting supply in variety of ways, their policies are also increasing demand and at the same time consuming any supply there is.

This isn't a problem caused by any generation. It's govt policy driving this dysfunction.

We have another knee jerk policy in giving the tenant first offer. How does that help supply? It's another meaningless policy that won't help supply.

What has that got to do with the point I raised.

Home ownership is what people want in Ireland, it provides security for retirement as it means they can't be potentially evicted, government would be better off to accept that do what the people want and always have an excess supply of houses available, it's not overly difficult ti implement such a policy they just don't want to do it.

Problem is the age profile of people in the Dáil are the people who saw property as an investment rather than just a place to live and as a result don't want to undermine their own investment for the sake of having a properly run country for younger people.

Given obsolecence, population growth, household formation, new houses are required.

Who builds them?

Any one over voting age voted these govts in. "This" generation is a responsible as anyone else.

You certainly are...you and a lot of others that just like the sound of their own arguments crapping on about wages, apprenticeships, social welfare payments(??) and everything else that is irrelevant to how this generation is 'worse-off' than their parents - there's almost full employment ffs.

HOUSING IS THE ISSUE!

The young people, whether they study hard and save hard, and get up early in the morning, are finding that they are still living with Mammy and Daddy as they now enter their thirties, with not enough houses being built the last ten fking years and with 60% of private over-priced rental stock being subsidised (inflated) by the tax-payer, while the government introduce measure after measure to make the problem worse and to drum up even further demand for the ever-dwindling resource that is affordable housing - either renting or purchasing, in this great country. It's an utter clusterfking disaster, and for many of them, they won't be voting this shower in next time round.

That always puzzles me when people say we should all be renters for life like some more 'advanced' EU neighbours. Renters pay someone. Are all those dwellings in the likes of switzerland, austria etc built by those governments or by private investors or organisations with shareholders?

Maybe they are owned by pension funds or other investment vehicles used by the very rich to increase their huge personal wealth even more at the expense of normal working people. Enormous property wealth concentrated in the hands of a few at the top doesnt sound like a better option to me.

If you study, save hard and are still living with your parents in your thirties, you should have a very large deposit saved. Some people will be able to buy but the idea of not saving and then just trying to save hard for a a couple of years is over in my opinion. Between me and the wife we had 200k saved as a deposit when we bought, saved over about 9 years.

This thread has turned into a comedy sketch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1by0-nkKOTs

Spent 3 years in college & another 4 getting a professional qualification.

Have changed my car 3 times in 15 years. Never had PCP

Past 5 years I've only done one week long holiday a year & maybe 2 city breaks

My phone is never the latest model, my tablet was won in a competition so the only tech I've bought in a few years is a fitbit.

Travel the world - I've been a lot of places but mainly on a budget. Only blowout was 15 years ago

Never been to Australia (but those I know who went came back in a better position than some of us who stayed)

Nope not an influencer.

All that said, it takes 2 of us to afford a house not much bigger than the one I grew up in which was paid for from a primary school principal's salary (my mam was a sahm). So yeah I do think overall this generation is worse off. Realistically for most people you need 2 salaries to afford a home & then with both working, if you have kids, you have to afford childcare out of that too. I know a few primary school teachers who would struggle to get a mortgage for an apartment with just their salary where my dad was able to buy a 4 bed house.

Yes I've managed to buy a house but honestly we were lucky to a degree as we got in while prices were rising but hadn't quite got to the level they have now. For example, a house in my estate went for €200k more than what we paid 4 years ago. That is crazy. And ours was about €70k higher than the previous set that were sold. The goalposts are continuously changing as to how much you need to get a house because prices are rising so much so even with a lot of saving, people just aren't reaching it as just when they think they've gotten there, the prices are up & they're shy on the deposit or they don't earn enough to satisfy the 3.5 times salary max rule. Plus if you have kids during the time you're saving, you're stuffed as that removes more from the banks idea of "what you can afford". And sometimes those calculations are stupid. I have friends (same qualification as me so good paying jobs) who were renting, saving to buy, and had a child. Even though the mortgage would have been €200 less a month than their rent (& they were paying childcare too), they were refused the mortgage as the bank didn't think they could afford it. They weren't left with nothing at the end of the month after paying their bills either. It's nuts.

My dad bought our house in late 89 so tail end of the 80's. My point is that comparatively, we were able to be a 1 income household & have a nice house compared to most people these days who need 2 incomes to afford anything similar.

Man "supporting" the wife, give me a break, it was the other way around.

You want women's marriage ban back? Where women were not legally permitted to work for wages once they were married? Completely at the mercy of some idiot drunk who held the purse strings, giving her a good beating when she complained about the marital rape, while it was illegal for her to get a paid job? I'm going to vote a Hard F-ing No on that one.

Make no mistake, that workforce discrimination is what allowed a man to build his own home and have his wife provide domestic slave labour to supporting his lifestyle. When you ban a huge proportion of the population from earning any income, your buck goes a lot further. My parents were forced to follow this outrageous model in the 70's, my mam was soundly chucked out of her job when she married, and when he was in an industrial accident a few years later and couldn't work, we were up **** creek.

Well, most people in the 80s would agree that it was possible, with sacrifice, to buy a property on one stable salary. The problem was having a single stable salary. Huge number emigrated because they couldn't find a job. There was also huge unemployment. You can't buy a property when you are unemployed! I would imagine these people would regard themselves as worse off than people unable to buy a home today.

The bank rules are there to protect everyone. We had a free for all in 00's and it ended very badly. Even now, 2 x 45k salaries, if they get an exemption to get 4.5, would be able to borrow €405k, which is far too much in my opinion to be borrowing on salaries like that. We certainly don't need to be making it possible to borrow even more.

You might not have to dig too long. It's not really fair though to be picking holes in peoples personal stories. Well you might make allowances if they are projecting something misleading though