The Commute

Scanlas The 2nd

Abi wrote: »

It's saying the exact same thing, but saying it nicely.



I know I couldn't do it without going do-lally. But I'd probably choose it over unemployment. For those that want to work, it's soul-destroying not having a job. A job is more than money just to pay the bills, it gives a feeling of self-worth. Jacking it in isn't an option for people carrying hefty mortgages and families, so they carry on because they have to.

The flip side of this is that people with jobs must think they have more worth than the unemployed,ie they think they are better than the unemployed.

HavingCrack

Abi wrote: »

City parks - fine to visit with the parents. I'm talking about them being let out to play on a daily basis.

Growing up I had a large enough garden but spent 99% of my time as a child playing on the local 'green' or park. I never spent any time in the garden and I don't know of anyone my age who did. We could have been out there all day during the summer and regularly were. The garden was just a patch of grass, big deal. I think the whole idea that children need a bit of garden is a bit untrue, I know I could have happily (and for all intents and purposes did) happily grown up without one.

Cianos

Abi wrote: »

Like what?

Whatever their options may be!

City parks - fine to visit with the parents. I'm talking about them being let out to play on a daily basis.

Many parks and play areas are suitable for being let out to play on a daily basis. There are also many roads around urban areas that have the same amount of traffic as your average housing estate.

Zoo & cinema - these may not be an option to those really struggling.

My point is there are loads of interesting places in close proximity to one another in the city that a family can pop out to easily.

The beach - Nice idea in theory, Irish weather has other ideas however.

The same weather that will keep a child sitting indoors bored rather than play out in the garden.

You can dismiss all my points with ifs and buts if it pleases you but the point remains that people see their gardens as giving their children a place to play as part of justification of buying a house that demands an insane commute, when there are loads of things for children to do in urban environments.

Two points here - one, the 'gardens' given with the houses during the boom time, well you can't even call them that, and in some cases non-existent. Two, the houses sold during this time were often as impressive as their back gardens. You couldn't swing a cat in them, so calling them houses is a bit of a stretch.

Who sounds snobby now?

Again you're ignoring my point - that people are easily sold on anything that suits the norm - front/back garden? grand. Quiet area? Grand. 2 hour drive to work? Ah sure, we couldn't afford the same closer to the city.

I think you're more or less saying it's border-line negligent, and I don't think that's fair. Parents spending time with their children in the evening time and the weekend is a reality for most.

Would you be of the view that one of the parents stay at home? or is the commute the parents have to endure?

It's a catch 22 situation. Jobs nearby are scarce, and not paying enough to pay the bills, hence the lengthy commutes to better paid jobs.

I didn't say or suggest negligence nor am I judging them on their ability as parents. I have a lot of respect for those that slug away and break their neck to do what they believe to be the best, or to make the most out of their situation. But the fact of the matter is that they barely see their children - there's not much parenting, good or bad, you can do sat in traffic 4 hours a day. There's a massive difference between spending 4 or 5 hours with your kids in the evening than spending 1 hour bolloxed after your long drive. I think too many people undertake this lifestyle without real consideration of what they and their children are missing out on and what benefits there are from the alternatives. Oh...but it has a front and back garden.

markpb

Abi wrote: »

City parks - fine to visit with the parents. I'm talking about them being let out to play on a daily basis.

The idea that you have to live 2 hours from work so your children can play outside is ridiculous. Yes, there are parts of Dublin unsuitable for raising a family (Hanover Quay, IFSC, etc) but there are plenty that are. You don't have to drive to St. Stephens Green to bring a child to the park to play. Vast tracts of Dublin have green areas precisely for that reason. Here are three of the most recent areas that I've lived:

Larch Hill, Coolock - 10 acres of green areas in an apartment complex.
Willow Park, Finglas - big green areas right outside peoples houses
Dundrum - a public park and football pitch right beside four apartment complexes.

I feel sorry for people who lost their jobs and can't move because they can't sell their homes but I have no sympathy who work in a city but refuse to move there. At best, it's giving your child space but no time with them and at worst, it's not predictable. What happens if the roads flood like they did last week, if the train line shuts down (like the northern line did) or if something happens your child and you need to get home to them in a hurry?

Amtmann

Storminateacup wrote: »

Renting property is dead money. I would rather put that 1k a month towards our house.

That's part of the big con that so many gullible people just accept. When you hear something often enough, why question it, eh?

Renting is not dead money. You're paying for a service. You're paying for excellent flexibility. You're paying for freedom from maintenance and repair costs. Renting is a *good* thing, if you rent sensibly.

But hey, why not rent your house from the bank for a few decades instead, pay them a nice cut of interest too, and pump thousands into lawns, appliances, furnishings, services, and general upkeep while you're at it.

Dead money :rolleyes:

angel01

I travel close to 2 hours from where I live to my workplace, I take a combination of 2 buses (1 I can cut out and just walk) and 1 luas to work and same back home again. I depend on public transport as I don't drive (and can't afford to)

I can't be so choosy either about where I live or where I work and in this day and age, I am lucky to have a permanent job. I leave home at 6.25am and don't get home till around 6.40pm

Kasabian

My commute takes 1 min 37secs on average.:)
Long may it last.

Rubecula

My commute is about 5 or ten minutes in the car and about 30 to 40 walking. (I can't walk that far just now due to injury) However I often wished I had a slightly longer commute.

Two reasons for this. I am too close to work and I am one of the first names on the list to be called in when needed. Also if I am a couple of minutes late, I am far too close to be able to make up time on the trip, and hence I may be late in.

spoofilyj

filthymcnasty wrote: »

This daft programme had something of an identity crisis: the people featured living abroad are essentially emigrants, not commuters.
Anyone foolish enough to fly back to Ireland each week to play for a hurling team needs their head examined.
The midwife from Cork- well its just too bad theres no maternity hospital in her back yard to work in. People have migrated towards work since time immemorial, sadly its not the other way round.

Man up: our forefathers have been emigrating for generations and were lucky to get back from the UK once a year- those in the US and further afield were lucky to come back at all. Thats not to say our diaspora should only come back once a year, but a bit of perspective is needed here.

There is one of the biggest maternity hospitals in the country in Cork its just that the HSE has a Hiring freezw on at the moment so no one qualified as a Midwife can get a job in Ireland!

Snakeblood

Rubecula wrote: »

My commute is about 5 or ten minutes in the car and about 30 to 40 walking. (I can't walk that far just now due to injury) However I often wished I had a slightly longer commute.

Two reasons for this. I am too close to work and I am one of the first names on the list to be called in when needed. Also if I am a couple of minutes late, I am far too close to be able to make up time on the trip, and hence I may be late in.

That bolded bit makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that people on longer commutes could do them quicker but choose not to generally?

Stark

Tremelo wrote: »

That's part of the big con that so many gullible people just accept. When you hear something often enough, why question it, eh?

Renting is not dead money. You're paying for a service. You're paying for excellent flexibility. You're paying for freedom from maintenance and repair costs. Renting is a *good* thing, if you rent sensibly.

But hey, why not rent your house from the bank for a few decades instead, pay them a nice cut of interest too, and pump thousands into lawns, appliances, furnishings, services, and general upkeep while you're at it.

Dead money :rolleyes:

+1. The most important thing to consider imo is the cost of rent compared against the cost of monthly interest rate payments. At the moment, my rent is significantly less. Have no plans to buy until I have enough of a lump sum saved up so when I do take out a mortgage, the interest I'm paying makes sense cost wise. In the meantime, I get to live somewhere where a landlord has to suffer the costs of maintaining the property.

Rubecula

Snakeblood wrote: »

That bolded bit makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that people on longer commutes could do them quicker but choose not to generally?

No not at all, What I was saying relates purely to me.

Last week my phone rang as I was getting ready to leave for work and it was very important. By the time I left I was running five minutes late. Too late to phone work and let them know I would be late. If I lived a half hour away I would be able to let them know, and possibly drive a bit quicker in order to make up time.

Abi

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

people with jobs must think they have more worth than the unemployed,ie they think they are better than the unemployed.

If you think I'm going to take the bait, you've another thing coming.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Growing up I had a large enough garden but spent 99% of my time as a child playing on the local 'green' or park. I never spent any time in the garden and I don't know of anyone my age who did. We could have been out there all day during the summer and regularly were. The garden was just a patch of grass, big deal. I think the whole idea that children need a bit of garden is a bit untrue, I know I could have happily (and for all intents and purposes did) happily grown up without one.

Obviously children aren't going to want to stay confined to their gardens, I was talking about younger children and toddlers, where it's not safe for them to be out on the street, or out of their parents view.

Cianos wrote: »

Whatever their options may be!

Thats too vague, sorry.

You can dismiss all my points with ifs and buts if it pleases you

I'm doing no such thing, putting up an opposing argument is being dismissive now?

but the point remains that people see their gardens as giving their children a place to play as part of justification of buying a house that demands an insane commute, when there are loads of things for children to do in urban environments.

Who sounds snobby now?

You're calling me a snob now? When looking for somewhere to live myself, I considered properties with and without gardens. Have a preference for one does not make me a snob, let's not be silly here.

that people are easily sold on anything that suits the norm - front/back garden? grand. Quiet area? Grand. 2 hour drive to work? Ah sure, we couldn't afford the same closer to the city.

I think you're forgetting that some people already had more local jobs when they bought their homes. Some have lost their jobs and have had to seek work further afield in order to keep the roof over their heads. Yet again, the snobbery brush comes out.

I think too many people undertake this lifestyle without real consideration of what they and their children are missing out on and what benefits there are from the alternatives. Oh...but it has a front and back garden.

See above.

Snakeblood

Rubecula wrote: »

No not at all, What I was saying relates purely to me.

Last week my phone rang as I was getting ready to leave for work and it was very important. By the time I left I was running five minutes late. Too late to phone work and let them know I would be late. If I lived a half hour away I would be able to let them know, and possibly drive a bit quicker in order to make up time.

Well, yeah, but still you're saying you can make the theoretical long commute shorter. I'm just fairly convinced that most people are driving/commuting as quickly as possible and you're seeing a possible advantage that simply isn't there, or if it is there, is probably as vulnerable to lengthening as shortening.

Sorry, I'm not having a go, I just have an hour commute, and while the time of the commute is faster or shorter, that is really outside my control, as I imagine it is for most commuters.

cournioni

ninja900 wrote: »

No the problem is that the programme was extremely poor. It set itself up as addressing the concerns of everyday people but instead focused on a few people who can best be described as lunatics who refuse to emotionally commit to moving their families to where their work is.

Its very hard to commit to living where your work is, when your work is in Dublin.

markpb

cournioni wrote: »

Its very hard to commit to living where your work is, when your work is in Dublin.

??

Jimoslimos

A couple of years ago, having a second weekend home in the countryside was being promoted as a lifestyle choice on many property programmes. It is not uncommon to see this in the UK, especially amongst city workers in London.

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

A couple of years ago, having a second weekend home in the countryside was being promoted as a lifestyle choice on many property programmes. It is not uncommon to see this in the UK, especially amongst city workers in London.

Or the other way round, where (better off) commuters had a "crash pad*" in the city and the family home in the sticks.

*studio or one bed flat.

mathie

Trent Reznor must make a fortune off RTE.
They're always playing his music in these 'edgy' documentaries.

Cianos

Abi wrote: »

Thats too vague, sorry.

I originally said that people can live wherever they want, ie where they live they are living there because they chose to live there. Replace my original usage of the word "want" with "choose"...that's all; "People can live where they choose" etc etc. Same way you might say "Say what you want, but....".

I'm doing no such thing, putting up an opposing argument is being dismissive now?

I'm simply describing how there are many things available for children and families in a city to help argue against the conservative idea that cities are not child-friendly. So when an opposing argument is based on nit picking, it is fairly dismissive yes.

You're calling me a snob now? When looking for somewhere to live myself, I considered properties with and without gardens. Have a preference for one does not make me a snob, let's not be silly here.

I'm referring to you calling the houses not very impressive.

I think you're forgetting that some people already had more local jobs when they bought their homes. Some have lost their jobs and have had to seek work further afield in order to keep the roof over their heads. Yet again, the snobbery brush comes out.

I'm not talking about those who find themselves having to face long commutes out of no choice because of unforeseen circumstances. As I said above I have a lot of respect for those who slug through to make the best of their situation.

Scanlas The 2nd

Abi wrote: »

If you think I'm going to take the bait, you've another thing coming.


.

I'm not fishing here. The point I made is a valid one, people are basing their "self worth" on arbitrary things that doesn't make sense. If you get self worth from a job then you must look down on people who don't have jobs. You can use your bait line to avoid facing that reality but it's the truth.

Stark

Rubecula wrote: »

No not at all, What I was saying relates purely to me.

Last week my phone rang as I was getting ready to leave for work and it was very important. By the time I left I was running five minutes late. Too late to phone work and let them know I would be late. If I lived a half hour away I would be able to let them know, and possibly drive a bit quicker in order to make up time.

There's a lot less that can go wrong on a 30 min commute than a 2 hour commute. A 5 minute phone call is going to cost you a lot less than an accident/flooding/ice etc. on the motorway on your way into work. Living 6km from work meant that I was only a half hour late getting home last Monday night with the floods. Had I been living in Portlaoise or whatever, I would have been stuck the office for the evening.

Snakeblood

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not fishing here. The point I made is a valid one, people are basing their "self worth" on arbitrary things that doesn't make sense. If you get self worth from a job then you must look down on people who don't have jobs. You can use your bait line to avoid facing that reality but it's the truth.

You don't understand the difference between self worth, and seeing worth in others, and you don't seem to understand that just because someone sees something as a positive, the lack of it in others is not necessarily a negative.

desertcircus

Storminateacup wrote: »

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think more people in Ireland need to be realistic about work and family life. People are obsessed with raising their kids in the country, but want the kind of well-paying professional jobs that by and large are going to be in a city. But there are only so many hours in the day, and you can't have it all. Yet suggest you raise your kids in Dublin or - GOD FORBID - in a flat instead of a house, and people look at you like you have three heads.

If you want a well-paying professional position and you want to spend time with your family, then be prepared to have a smaller house (for probably more money) but a shorter commute. But it's annoying that people complain about 2-hour commutes because they think they are entitled to both city wages and a country lifestyle. Just pick one and quit whinging.

Because god forbid people aim for the best of both worlds. Why should people have to settle? Choose between raising their children in the country and a well paid professional job?

I grew up in the country. I want the same - the best - for my child. And if that means I go back to work when she's almost 2 months old, and commute for four hours a day to give it to her, then that's what I'll do. Renting property is dead money. I would rather put that 1k a month towards our house.

Ideally, things would be different, but hey. They're not. It won't be like this forever.

This is outright lunacy. The average house in this country is losing value at a rate of far more than a thousand quid a month. You could move somewhere close to work, get an extra two hours a day with her and come out financially better off by paying far less for the house in three years' time. The phrase "rent is dead money" is one of the worst ideas ever apoken aloud in this country.

Abi

Cianos wrote: »

I originally said that people can live wherever they want, ie where they live they are living there because they chose to live there. Replace my original usage of the word "want" with "choose"...that's all; "People can live where they choose" etc etc. Same way you might say "Say what you want, but....".

You really think everyone has this option?

Some people who choose their home at the time may have been living considerably closer to their jobs then. A lot of people can't even sell their homes now, even if they wanted to. For most, the 'want' and 'choose' option has been removed, and all that's left is 'survive' in the only way they can.

I'm simply describing how there are many things available for children and families in a city to help argue against the conservative idea that cities are not child-friendly. So when an opposing argument is based on nit picking, it is fairly dismissive yes.

I break down a person's points to make points of my own. Calling it nit-picking is a weak out, if you ask me.

I'm referring to you calling the houses not very impressive.

I did no such thing. I merely said a lot of the new-builds of the boom time got considerably smaller, and you couldn't swing a cat in them.

I might add, I nearly bought one of these for the sake of being on the ladder. So no, I don't think I'm too good for these houses. I think that renders your 'snob' comment invalid.

I'm not talking about those who find themselves having to face long commutes out of no choice because of unforeseen circumstances. As I said above I have a lot of respect for those who slug through to make the best of their situation.

Well, I am. Each case is different, and some more extreme than others - but I don't believe that anyone would put them through that unless they felt - in their own case, it was necessary.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you get self worth from a job then you must look down on people who don't have jobs.

A) You're telling me how I think.

Ask people standing in the post office every week that have barely been a day out of work all of their lives. Ask them do they enjoy being out of work and how is it effecting them.

I don't look down on anyone on the dole that isn't there by choice. That's what I think. Not your opinion of how I think.

Scanlas The 2nd

Snakeblood wrote: »

You don't understand the difference between self worth, and seeing worth in others, and you don't seem to understand that just because someone sees something as a positive, the lack of it in others is not necessarily a negative.

If someone thinks they have less worth by lacking a certain characteristic such as being employed but doesn't think other people have less worth I find that peculiar logic.

but if you don't change your mind we'll have to agree to disagree to agree.

thecornflake

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

It's insane being honest. I travel from up and down to college everyday, it all depends whether I drive or get the train, but I am looking at inbetween an hour - an hour and half at the very least.. By the end of the week I am wreaked and use one day to catch up on sleep. Nothing like public transport to crush ones soul imho.

I walk two hours a day to get to college, public transport just isn't worth it for my journey.

desertcircus

thecornflake wrote: »

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

It's insane being honest. I travel from up and down to college everyday, it all depends whether I drive or get the train, but I am looking at inbetween an hour - an hour and half at the very least.. By the end of the week I am wreaked and use one day to catch up on sleep. Nothing like public transport to crush ones soul imho.

I walk two hours a day to get to college, public transport just isn't worth it for my journey.

Bicycle?

Snakeblood

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If someone thinks they have less worth by lacking a certain characteristic such as being employed but doesn't think other people have less worth I find that peculiar logic.

Find it peculiar logic by all means. Don't tell other people how they should feel or think because you think that way, it's arrogant and betrays a lack of understanding that not everyone feels like you.

Cianos

Abi wrote: »

You really think everyone has this option?

Some people who choose their home at the time may have been living considerably closer to their jobs then. A lot of people can't even sell their homes now, even if they wanted to. For most, the 'want' and 'choose' option has been removed, and all that's left is 'survive' in the only way they can.

I never said everyone has this option. But most people have some kind of choice in where they choose to buy a residence.

I break down a person's points to make points of my own. Calling it nit-picking is a weak out, if you ask me.

But you didn't break down my point. You claimed that city parks, beaches, zoos and cinemas aren't worthy examples of children's recreation activities. They all usually look quite jam packed full of kids to me.

I did no such thing. I merely said a lot of the new-builds of the boom time got considerably smaller, and you couldn't swing a cat in them.

I'll quote this bit for the second time so...

Two points here - one, the 'gardens' given with the houses during the boom time, well you can't even call them that, and in some cases non-existent. Two, the houses sold during this time were often as impressive as their back gardens. You couldn't swing a cat in them, so calling them houses is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I am. Each case is different, and some more extreme than others - but I don't believe that anyone would put them through that unless they felt - in their own case, it was necessary.

For those who have no choice due to unforeseen circumstances and have to make do then there is no conversation there, they simply have to do what they have to do and that's it. And as I have said numerous times already, those are not the people I am talking about, so I'm not sure if you're just trolling away now at this point.