"average Dublin house prices should fall to ‘the €300,000 mark" according to Many Lou McD.

are you serious? you are aware that in most properly run countries, there are proper rates of taxation, to discourage this social decay?

You can do all those things.

You are choosing not to.

There isn't an agreed point where something stops being market rate and starts being price gouging.

I'd consider charging 4k to 'project manage' a tradesman working for 3 days price gouging, even if some might see it as just a result of a very broken market.

But thanks at least for being honest in not trying to BS that these are legitimate costs.

It's absolutely incredible that this isn't accepted by the banks as ability to pay a mortgage.

The current rules were designed in an era when people got married out of the Daddies' and Mammies' house and bought on the basis of having been able to save for a number of years previously. Nowadays most people move out and begin to rent when they move away to study, or if they study in the town or city they grew up in, on completing their studies. But as with the insurance industry, the banks have refused to adapt to modern circumstances. It's as though they want the free use of the savers' money for several years prior to providing a loan, because ability to pay rent on a monthly basis is proof of ability to pay a mortgage with the same monthly payments.

When was the last time you had a tradesman in your house? Have you done any projects which required managing the trades people?

There's a drastic shortage of construction workers and tradesmen.

On that basis people are charging a lot more for these services than would be the case in an efficient market, even if the person doing the work is only getting a fraction of that price.

Whether you want to call that supply and demand or price gouging it's not a market that's working effectively and efficiently.

Markets not working efficiently are generally seen as having a long-term detrimental effect on society and the economy.

A functioning market is one that sets prices based on supply and demand. 10 years ago construction costs were low, did anyone complain that they were paying too little for trades people?

You ask any contractor what their biggest problem is, they will tell you it is getting trades people. For a few years there has been a shortage of new trades people due to Covid, the lure of other careers etc. That isn’t caused by a malfunctioning market. Those that are now there can pick and choose what jobs to take, and place a higher value on their labour, that is how market pressures work,

I did a moderate sized job on my property this year, I project managed myself, because I’ve done it before. I knew the tradespeople, many of them have done work for me before, but it was a total pain in the ass making sure they were all there. Even with that, the job ended up taking far longer, and costing a lot more than it was intended. There was a lot of down time when people didn’t turn up, materials didn’t arrive, problems between the trades people. If it was a smaller job, you can be damn sure I would have paid a builder and had him organise all the trades people to be there, and I would have paid him the market rate.

Just because you call it gouging doesn’t make it so, if what you are being charged is the going rate at that time.

Again, you can’t countenance for a pandemic disrupting training courses, you can’t force people to become plasterers, electricians, plumbers etc. A lot of the foreign workers like Eastern Europeans have returned to their own countries because their economies have improved and there are well paying jobs there. The shortages in labour are not due to a malfunctioning market. Builders/trades can now pick and choose their jobs and price accordingly, the same as IT people and other in demand professions.

I get that you aren’t happy about paying more, most people aren’t, but don’t be a hypocrite, if you were in demand, you would be negotiating a higher wage when employers try to get you to come work for them.

Incentivise in what way? Surely the current job prospects and prices charged by trades people today is a pretty good incentive, what should the Government do?

And again, I put it to you, if you were in demand, would you not negotiate a wage with any new employer that takes such demand for your skills into account? It would be rather foolish not to negotiate the going rate for your skills.

Of course you would negotiate a good wage, the going rate, no doubt.

I doubt the builder calls to peoples houses looking for work, chances are that the home owner is the one doing the chasing.

You can’t on the one hand acknowledge that you would negotiate a wage if you are in demand, and then call it gouging when others do it.

Yes, increasing the rates paid to apprentices might help, but should they also pay other students studying in third level, because there is a shortage? The trades people that did work for me said young people just do not want to do that type of work anymore, even if job prospects and pay are there for them. But that is getting away from the fact that shortages in trades in themselves cannot be blamed on a malfunctioning sector or poor policies, if people don’t want to do that type of manual work in all weathers, then there isn’t a lot that can be done about it. A consequence of that of course, is that the builders who are there now, can put a higher value on their labour, rather like you negotiating a better wage.

The good news, if it’s above market rate, you are free to find one would do it at a better rate.

Your argument about me negotiating a higher wage with my employer and price gouging don't really hold up for several reasons, but to be honest I'm not really interested in debating it with you.

I'm far more interested in the economic and political side of this than the individual.

The government already heavily incentivises people to reskill in other industries. Paid springboard courses are available in areas deemed of strategic demand such as IT, pharma and manufacturing. The IDA further subsidises salaries and site costs.

Why this wasn't done for construction I can only speculate. From job campaigns I've seen lately it looks like they're even struggling now to recruit tutors for existing apprenticeship courses.

I couldn't say for sure but I don't think it's a case either that this generation is too soft for apprenticeships. I see a lot of younger people into fitness and tough outdoor activities, I doubt they're put off by a bit of bad weather.

Poor apprentice rates and perceived lack of job security I suspect are bigger factors.

This " price gouging " lol ! You work out those kind of logistics, drive all over the place, physical work, often in the rain and cold. This " fortune " it pays, its a fair reflection of what they are doing v most people sitting on their ass in the warm and dry... it should be paying a multiple of other jobs, that's reflected in the effort...

Dealing with the public is bad enough, go deal with the publics homes etc...

The example I gave of price gouging was a builder quoting 5k for a job. Which a tradesman would be doing in 3 days.

The tradesman would be on site rates, getting about 250 a day.

I appreciate there's prsi, pension, insurance etc. But it's looking like 4k to the builder for 'project managing' a 3 day job.

I've no problem with the tradesman getting more for his work. In fact many should along with better job security.

Get multiple quote, normally 3, if they are all charging the same amount then that's the price.

Thats becuase its never gouging. I could charge €100 for a Twix if I wanted to, you are free to go elsewhere or wait or make your own Twix.