Why Irish houses are still massively overpriced

creedp

kjkkments wrote: »

I think residential landloards and those that bought to rent have much to answer for, their greed created the demand and forced the house prices up beyond the first time buyers range. And also multiplied by a factor the unrealistic percieved demand that existed. Now that they are defaulting like crazy they cannot afford to sell at a loss so rather than release to market they prefer to wait for some sort of return to purchase price further propping up the current prices because the full extent of the overstocking cannot be seen. One solution repossession on all non performing buy to let properties and immediate placement on the market it might hurt short term but at least we would finally know where the real bottom of the market it.

Does this mean that all Irish people really want is to buy more houses and landlords are styming them by not releasing the houses into the market. Presumably this must mean Irish people dont actually want to rent after all and consider anyone who purchased a house to rent as greedy irrespective of what the Europeans do.

kjkkments

creedp wrote: »

Does this mean that all Irish people really want is to buy more houses and landlords are styming them by not releasing the houses into the market. Presumably this must mean Irish people dont actually want to rent after all and consider anyone who purchased a house to rent as greedy irrespective of what the Europeans do.

I think that the market should be allowed to bottom out so in that sense you are correct if the landlord cant pay a mortgage and they dont live in the house take it off them maybe sell it to the tennent at current market price . Irish people do like to own their home for whatever reason its not important what the reason's are but they should have the opportunity. I do think that greed was the reason for all the speculation. People thought wrongly that property investment was a way to get rich quick. Sounds like greed to me when people have 4/5/6 mortgages that they cant afford.

creedp

kjkkments wrote: »

I think that the market should be allowed to bottom out so in that sense you are correct if the landlord cant pay a mortgage and they dont live in the house take it off them maybe sell it to the tennent at current market price . Irish people do like to own their home for whatever reason its not important what the reason's are but they should have the opportunity. I do think that greed was the reason for all the speculation. People thought wrongly that property investment was a way to get rich quick. Sounds like greed to me when people have 4/5/6 mortgages that they cant afford.

I agree if someone can't/won't repay their mortgage then either they agree to a restructuring or lose the house. This applies to owner occupiers and buy to lets.

I simply have a difficulty trying to understand if it is a good thing for Irish people to want to continue to buy houses given the constant reference to the fact that it is uniquely Irish to want to own your own house as against the European model where you rent your house for your entire life. Obviously if you want to rent there must be a landlord to rent from.

As for the point that landlords with mortgaged buy to lets are inherently greedy, presumably this description is also apt for business owners or even entrepreneurs who borrowed to start a business/expand their businesses in order to make/increase profits, especially now if they are in financial difficulty - greedy gits, eh! Or is being a landlord wishing to make a profit from there investment a somewhat different animal from your blue blood business person? As I say I'm trying to work out the sentiments here.

kjkkments

creedp wrote: »

I agree if someone can't/won't repay their mortgage then either they agree to a restructuring or lose the house. This applies to owner occupiers and buy to lets.

I simply have a difficulty trying to understand if it is a good thing for Irish people to want to continue to buy houses given the constant reference to the fact that it is uniquely Irish to want to own your own house as against the European model where you rent your house for your entire life. Obviously if you want to rent there must be a landlord to rent from.

As for the point that landlords with mortgaged buy to lets are inherently greedy, presumably this description is also apt for business owners or even entrepreneurs who borrowed to start a business/expand their businesses in order to make/increase profits, especially now if they are in financial difficulty - greedy gits, eh! Or is being a landlord wishing to make a profit from there investment a somewhat different animal from your blue blood business person? As I say I'm trying to work out the sentiments here.

I would treat owner occupiers differently if you bought a home for your family and circumstances got away from you I have a huge ammount of simpathy for you and would wish that eviction would be a very last resort.
Business owners that cannot pay are declared bankrupt and loose their goods . Buy to lets simply entered a business and did not understand the risks and the concequences but that is not an excuse and the consequences are well known. The greed comes in when there was nothing produced but debt, they wanted more more more it was simply speculation nothing more. The duy to lets were not business people they were just fools that got sucked into all the spin. Business owners at least thought that what they had created was sustainable a housing bubble was never going to be long term

gaius c

kjkkments wrote: »

I would treat owner occupiers differently if you bought a home for your family and circumstances got away from you I have a huge ammount of simpathy for you and would wish that eviction would be a very last resort.
Business owners that cannot pay are declared bankrupt and loose their goods . Buy to lets simply entered a business and did not understand the risks and the concequences but that is not an excuse and the consequences are well known. The greed comes in when there was nothing produced but debt, they wanted more more more it was simply speculation nothing more. The duy to lets were not business people they were just fools that got sucked into all the spin. Business owners at least thought that what they had created was sustainable a housing bubble was never going to be long term

Ger Kilally is an owner occupiper, isn't he? Would you let him stay in the mansion he's not paying for?
Extreme example but just because it's a PPR, doesn't mean it should be sacrosanct.

Farmer Pudsey

kjkkments wrote: »

I think residential landloards and those that bought to rent have much to answer for, their greed created the demand and forced the house prices up beyond the first time buyers range. And also multiplied by a factor the unrealistic percieved demand that existed. Now that they are defaulting like crazy they cannot afford to sell at a loss so rather than release to market they prefer to wait for some sort of return to purchase price further propping up the current prices because the full extent of the overstocking cannot be seen. One solution repossession on all non performing buy to let properties and immediate placement on the market it might hurt short term but at least we would finally know where the real bottom of the market it.

kjkkments wrote: »

I think that the market should be allowed to bottom out so in that sense you are correct if the landlord cant pay a mortgage and they dont live in the house take it off them maybe sell it to the tennent at current market price . Irish people do like to own their home for whatever reason its not important what the reason's are but they should have the opportunity. I do think that greed was the reason for all the speculation. People thought wrongly that property investment was a way to get rich quick. Sounds like greed to me when people have 4/5/6 mortgages that they cant afford.

kjkkments wrote: »

I would treat owner occupiers differently if you bought a home for your family and circumstances got away from you I have a huge ammount of simpathy for you and would wish that eviction would be a very last resort.
Business owners that cannot pay are declared bankrupt and loose their goods . Buy to lets simply entered a business and did not understand the risks and the concequences but that is not an excuse and the consequences are well known. The greed comes in when there was nothing produced but debt, they wanted more more more it was simply speculation nothing more. The duy to lets were not business people they were just fools that got sucked into all the spin. Business owners at least thought that what they had created was sustainable a housing bubble was never going to be long term

kjkkments, what comes accross from your posts is that you want banks to repossess houses, take a huge loss by dumping them onto the market so you can buy a cheap house. This in turn will effect confidance in the sector that is slowly returning.

Maybe the banks would be better off writing down the loans by 40-60% and allowing the existing landlords to continue there buisness this might be more benificial to the banks.

My own opinion is that the market has nearly reached the bottom or already has. As housing has entered the market it has been sold and snapped up by savvey investors or purchassers.

Buisness owners are not always declared bankrupt or lose there goods it is what is in the best interest of the banks that decides the process. The other issue is that as I have often stated is that young people trying to buy will not be a benificery of any dumping rather those that have access to quick money who always happen to be inverstors in the main. If houses drop that much I might buy one or two myself and turn them over in 2-5 years. I know it is greed but as Gordon Gekko said ''greed is good''.

I just think you feed like some other that you have missed the boat and that the banks should create a situtation whereby you should be entitled to buy a house at less than the market value. Sorry but it is the real world out there and as long as there are people who percieve that there is a quick few bob(2-5 years) to be made you are out of luck.

Why should I allow you to but a cheap house if I can buy it and either sell it on in a while at a substancial profit or let it yield me a return of 10-20% if houses drop as much as you want them to.

Creedp yes I believe house ownership is benificial to the mojority of the population the issue is the amount of money some people tie up in it. Nothing wrong with having a decent home it is some of these 2000++sq ft houses are the issue. However property tax over the next 20 years will sort that out.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Creedp yes I believe house ownership is benificial to the mojority of the population the issue is the amount of money some people tie up in it. Nothing wrong with having a decent home it is some of these 2000++sq ft houses are the issue. However property tax over the next 20 years will sort that out.

Agree with you that there is nothing inherently wrong with owning a house except in cases where people get in over their heads. Q uestion is how did that happen .. how did they get access to sufficient credit? You'd understand the following ... a suckie calf will drink milk!

I don't fully understand why you have a problem with people with houses over 2,000 sq ft? If they can afford the purchase and upkeep of these houses why should anyone have a problem with this. I for instance have a problem with well paid people driving Audi A6 and the like .. anything bigger than a Mondeo class car is wrong and car tax should be structured to weed out this undesirable practice.

Farmer Pudsey

creedp wrote: »

Agree with you that there is nothing inherently wrong with owning a house except in cases where people get in over their heads. Q uestion is how did that happen .. how did they get access to sufficient credit? You'd understand the following ... a suckie calf will drink milk!

I don't fully understand why you have a problem with people with houses over 2,000 sq ft? If they can afford the purchase and upkeep of these houses why should anyone have a problem with this. I for instance have a problem with well paid people driving Audi A6 and the like .. anything bigger than a Mondeo class car is wrong and car tax should be structured to weed out this undesirable practice.

The issue is that it ties up too much money in property. It back about not being able to afford it. Young couples tying a lot of money in houses causes a few issue's It gives them less disposable income and they have to furnish and decorate it. Down the line it will put pressure on them when they need to save to provide for there childern's education. Often they take out 30+ year loans. This will prevent them from getting out of debt throughout there lives. It will also require both to stay working to pay that loan.

Going for a more sustainable house less than 2000sqft(still a sustancial house may well mean only a 20 year loan and if one earner is out of work for a while they will be able to sustain the payments

maninasia

There's nothing wrong with dropping out of work to raise kids, it's fairly common all around the world, and Germany's economy proves there's nothing wrong with their economic model. As for not providing daycare, I don't know why mothers wouldn't rather looking after their kids at such a young age i.e. under three, or any age, than work in a crappy job somewhere.

The double income system is one of the main causes of high property prices, you end up with two people outside the home working for the same thing that could have been purchased with one person's income 30 years ago. Who wins?

Potatoeman

creedp wrote: »

Does this mean that all Irish people really want is to buy more houses and landlords are styming them by not releasing the houses into the market. Presumably this must mean Irish people dont actually want to rent after all and consider anyone who purchased a house to rent as greedy irrespective of what the Europeans do.

There is very little benefit renting now. Rents are very high compared to mortgages and have little stability.

Potatoeman

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

kjkkments, what comes accross from your posts is that you want banks to repossess houses, take a huge loss by dumping them onto the market so you can buy a cheap house. This in turn will effect confidance in the sector that is slowly returning.

Maybe the banks would be better off writing down the loans by 40-60% and allowing the existing landlords to continue there buisness this might be more benificial to the banks.

My own opinion is that the market has nearly reached the bottom or already has. As housing has entered the market it has been sold and snapped up by savvey investors or purchassers.

Buisness owners are not always declared bankrupt or lose there goods it is what is in the best interest of the banks that decides the process. The other issue is that as I have often stated is that young people trying to buy will not be a benificery of any dumping rather those that have access to quick money who always happen to be inverstors in the main. If houses drop that much I might buy one or two myself and turn them over in 2-5 years. I know it is greed but as Gordon Gekko said ''greed is good''.

I just think you feed like some other that you have missed the boat and that the banks should create a situtation whereby you should be entitled to buy a house at less than the market value. Sorry but it is the real world out there and as long as there are people who percieve that there is a quick few bob(2-5 years) to be made you are out of luck.

Why should I allow you to but a cheap house if I can buy it and either sell it on in a while at a substancial profit or let it yield me a return of 10-20% if houses drop as much as you want them to.

Creedp yes I believe house ownership is benificial to the mojority of the population the issue is the amount of money some people tie up in it. Nothing wrong with having a decent home it is some of these 2000++sq ft houses are the issue. However property tax over the next 20 years will sort that out.

Writting off the debt would not put a bottom on the market. It wont happen anyway as NAMA is designed to stop this. Under normal market conditions people would lose the house and it would be auctioned. Claiming he wants a cheap house when the market is rigged against him by the government is nonsense.

kjkkments

Guys you couldn't be further from the truth. I bought my house years ago at a resonable price and I am now proud to say that I own it outright. Most people in the area did the same and the houses are nearly all family homes with long established residents. There is a real sense of community and I know all my neighbours I live in a comunity not a dormitory for poor unfortunate commuter who has no choice but to rent because of all the investors.
I am glad I "missed the boat" which is a good comparison but only if it was christened titanic. The question i have is has the market really bottomed out when the extent of supply is an unknown quantity. There is some demand Iin the market but they are being over charged because the backlog of housing stock is not actually on the market.
I dont really agree with the greed is good statement but you must see in some small way that this attitude did contribute to the problem and it looks like we learned nothing from the last ten years its very depressing.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The issue is that it ties up too much money in property. It back about not being able to afford it. Young couples tying a lot of money in houses causes a few issue's It gives them less disposable income and they have to furnish and decorate it. Down the line it will put pressure on them when they need to save to provide for there childern's education. Often they take out 30+ year loans. This will prevent them from getting out of debt throughout there lives. It will also require both to stay working to pay that loan.

Going for a more sustainable house less than 2000sqft(still a sustancial house may well mean only a 20 year loan and if one earner is out of work for a while they will be able to sustain the payments

Of course you shouldn't buy one onless you can afford it but I don't see the problem with buying one if you can comfortably do so, e.g. you have savings, investments, etc. Its a personal choice just like buying the overpriced car or latest piece of IT technology which will be gone by the wayside in a couple of years or spend thousand a year on your dream holiday. However, I accept your point is valid especially if were keeping an eye on the construction forum where 4 to 5,000 square ft houses became very popular during the 'good times'.

jocmilt

realitykeeper wrote: »

....If this happens, the policy of stimulus will have failed.

Consequently, even at the NAMA auctions there is no value to be had in the Irish property market. My fear is that those who are buying property today will find themselves deep in negative equity very soon. All that said, I may be wrong. As a potential house buyer of the future, I welcome the opinion of anyone with a view on the future direction of house prices.

The so called stimulus policy was always bound to fail. Stealing money from people to give it to private corporations so those corporations will give it back to the people it was stolen from or to other people is madness.

gaius c

Potatoeman wrote: »

Writting off the debt would not put a bottom on the market. It wont happen anyway as NAMA is designed to stop this. Under normal market conditions people would lose the house and it would be auctioned. Claiming he wants a cheap house when the market is rigged against him by the government is nonsense.

+1
I grow weary of debt-monkeys trying to tag others as "selfish".

gaius c

Also, the notion that "our growing population" needs more houses is just wrong.
http://cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2013/#.Uh8celMpgvk
If it keeps going the way it has, we're likely to see negative population growth fairly soon.

AlekSmart

gaius c wrote: »

Also, the notion that "our growing population" needs more houses is just wrong.
http://cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2013/#.Uh8celMpgvk
If it keeps going the way it has, we're likely to see negative population growth fairly soon.

Does this raise the somewhat interesting question as to whether Ireland is Over-Populated relative to it's actual ability to viably sustain it ?

Clarehobo

maninasia wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with dropping out of work to raise kids, it's fairly common all around the world, and Germany's economy proves there's nothing wrong with their economic model. As for not providing daycare, I don't know why mothers wouldn't rather looking after their kids at such a young age i.e. under three, or any age, than work in a crappy job somewhere.

The double income system is one of the main causes of high property prices, you end up with two people outside the home working for the same thing that could have been purchased with one person's income 30 years ago. Who wins?

Or fathers... In some cases women earn more than their partners.
Which would you prefer: to stay out at work or to stay at home with young kids, work as an unpaid domestic servant, be totally dependant on your spouse and be totally under-appreciated for your contribution to the economy, and then if the partnership fails, have no marketable skills?
If you look at Germany, women are actively discouraged from returning to work after giving birth - be that a lack of childcare facilities, a financial disincentive, social pressure, etc...

I agree with your second point - your first one is very naive and old-fashioned.

Cody Pomeray

maninasia wrote: »

The double income system is one of the main causes of high property prices, you end up with two people outside the home working for the same thing that could have been purchased with one person's income 30 years ago. Who wins?

The people who have careers they enjoy.

Icepick

Nama and banks holding stock and not repossessing is a financial crime perpetrated on people who keep this country afloat.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Does this raise the somewhat interesting question as to whether Ireland is Over-Populated relative to it's actual ability to viably sustain it ?

over-populated by spongers

maninasia

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The people who have careers they enjoy.

Yeah well that's obvious, unfortunately a lot of people, perhaps most, don't do jobs they particularly enjoy and are not on any career track. Working hours are increasing, stresses are increasing, income is not. Why do most people work, for money! Why do they need money, to pay the bills and put a roof over their head!

Looking after a family properly and having two people working is pretty difficult, especially when the kids are very young. Then you don't get to see your kids and your kids rearing gets outsourced.You end up paying almost one salary in child-rearing costs and taxes and the kids are getting substandard care.

To rub salt in the wounds, the two working people are paying a large chunk of their taxes to people on social welfare who can stay at home and raise their kids..on YOUR money.

As much as people would like to wish it away, kids have a natural affinity with mothers and mothers with kids. Fathers have too, but not usually to the same extent.

There's nothing wrong with people wanting a career, but there is CERTAINLY nothing wrong with one of the parents primary role being to look after the family and household. Mothers are better equipped to do this and many women would like to look after their kids, but it's not the fashionable thing in Ireland. It's not OLD fashioned, it's just in vogue at the moment in Ireland, but just wait, it may come back into vogue again. No matter that people want to wish away biology, mothers are generally better at child rearing.

To say Germany this, Germany that, and then look at the economic and social state and look at the state of Ireland, it's pathetic.
A country with large scale emigration, huge unemployment, massive national debt, no state childcare, social welfare dependency culture and a returning property bubble in Dublin in the midst of this lecturing Germany on how to do things?

dharma200

I am sorry but as a mother of three kids, who has stayed at home, worked , used childcare, not used childcare, and who has watched father of said children raise them over the last year, I have to really disagree... I am not sure if you have children or have experience of childcare in all it's forms, or the necessity to work, or have double income, or the more recent trend of fathers being the primary caregivers due to unemployment or low wages, I can assure you that working or staying home, using childcare or not, has absolutely nothing to do with fashion, maybe in dublin1 or whatever but I can assure you the rest of the country does nothing nowadays in regards to work or child rearing because of fashion, and to imply two working parents are doing so because it is in fashion is fairly insulting to those who are so close to the breadline they can see the mould.

The comment about mothers being able to better raise children is actually complete crap. If the mother is breast feeding then ofcourse... Apart from the that fathers are exactly the same equipped to emotionally and domestically care for a child. Raising children, excluding breast feed, has nothing to do with biology once the child is out of the womb.

Many women would like to be able to adequately feed clothe and house their kids, and to do this they go back to work. Many men want it do the same to. A few don't, and some women may find themselves dependant in someone who is not dependable, thus wanting the security of their own income instead of being, as you put it, old fashioned and staying at home raising the children, because she is biologically better at it? Eh no.
To imply a woman should stay at home to mind the kids so she won't be 'paying someone else's social welfare' ok, so all women should stay at home to ensure other people wh need social welfare aren't able to get it because there are no working mothers, eh , no.... The workforce has a huge percentage of woman who work, who pay their taxes, many of them who understand that being in social welfare is the pits, trying to raise children on social welfare, is horrible... To stay out do the workforce just because you pay taxes is ridiculous.

To say mothers are better equipped at raising children is perhaps one of the most old fashioned and out of date statements I have read in a while, and to insinuate mothers work because it is fashionable is laughable. It is a insult to all the men who currently raise children at home to state raising children, after the womb and breast feeding is over, is better suited to women because of biological factors, is complete and utter nonsense.

maninasia

I am sorry but as a mother of three kids, who has stayed at home, worked , used childcare, not used childcare, and who has watched father of said children raise them over the last year, I have to really disagree... I am not sure if you have children or have experience of childcare in all it's forms, or the necessity to work, or have double income, or the more recent trend of fathers being the primary caregivers due to unemployment or low wages, I can assure you that working or staying home, using childcare or not, has absolutely nothing to do with fashion, maybe in dublin1 or whatever but I can assure you the rest of the country does nothing nowadays in regards to work or child rearing because of fashion, and to imply two working parents are doing so because it is in fashion is fairly insulting to those who are so close to the breadline they can see the mould.

I'm sorry but I'm not impressed by the usual 'I'm a mother of XXX kids', 'I'm also a father of xxx kids', I don't think it's very relevant to personalise your statement as we can all do that.

The word fashion was to reply to the accusation of 'being old fashioned' whatever that means. The point I was making was that people decades ago were often better off generally as even though only one member of the household tended to work, housing costs were far more affordable, and with one member of the household at home raising the kids does not need to be outsourced. Whether it is the mother or father looking after the kids is not THAT important. I'm not saying somebody has to stay home till the kids get to college, but taking a few years out should be perfectly acceptable in society! I believe at the minimum any parent should be able to take two years off work (like what happens in France etc) to look after the kids.

The comment about mothers being able to better raise children is actually complete crap. If the mother is breast feeding then ofcourse... Apart from the that fathers are exactly the same equipped to emotionally and domestically care for a child. Raising children, excluding breast feed, has nothing to do with biology once the child is out of the womb.

Why do people think they can out argue biology? You seen many male fathers in the animal kingdom looking after their progeny? How many male mammals primarily raise their kids? You know how important that bonding and breast milk is between mother and child? It's a powerful and hormonal two way reaction that a father and children just don't have. That doesn't mean that a father cannot raise children, he's just not as well equipped from nature as females. To argue against this is pure PC foolishness.

Many women would like to be able to adequately feed clothe and house their kids, and to do this they go back to work. Many men want it do the same to. A few don't, and some women may find themselves dependant in someone who is not dependable, thus wanting the security of their own income instead of being, as you put it, old fashioned and staying at home raising the children, because she is biologically better at it? Eh no.

It's a personal decision of each couple and each individual.

To imply a woman should stay at home to mind the kids so she won't be 'paying someone else's social welfare' ok, so all women should stay at home to ensure other people wh need social welfare aren't able to get it because there are no working mothers, eh , no.... The workforce has a huge percentage of woman who work, who pay their taxes, many of them who understand that being in social welfare is the pits, trying to raise children on social welfare, is horrible... To stay out do the workforce just because you pay taxes is ridiculous.

No, you are missing the point, the way society is set up at the moment is that it taxes the hell out of working couples and a lot of that money is used as transfer to other people who simply don't work and in the process people on social welfare also get all these child support grants that a working person doesn't. So these taxes actually allow people on social welfare to choose to stay at home and look after their children but make it difficult for a single earning household to prosper. Now if some of those taxes were diverted to state sponsored childcare for your OWN CHILDREN that would be a big improvement. Or if working people got taxed less so they didn't need to earn so much money and maybe one of them could chuck in a crappy job that they simply don't like in many cases.

To say mothers are better equipped at raising children is perhaps one of the most old fashioned and out of date statements I have read in a while, and to insinuate mothers work because it is fashionable is laughable. It is a insult to all the men who currently raise children at home to state raising children, after the womb and breast feeding is over, is better suited to women because of biological factors, is complete and utter nonsense.

You seem to be admitting here that there is a special bond between mother and child! Originally breastfeeding went on for years, and still does in some countries. Breast milk has been proven to boost childrens immune system and also children raised on breast milk have less obesity when older and have higher IQs. While women can express breastmilk it is better if the child suckles directly due to hormonal influences.

So there's at least two years in a child's development where a mother being available to the child full-time is very beneficial. The father can do it, but he's a poor substitute for the real thing.

There's no such thing as 'old fashioned', it doesn't mean anything. During the Celtic Tiger saving was old fashioned. Now saving is in fashion.

Now breast feeding for more than a few months is 'old fashioned' mainly due to the inconvenience of it when working, even though it is PROVEN that kids who stop breastfeeding earlier are more likely to become obese when older.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/13/understanding-how-breastfeeding-affects-obesity/
Feldman-Winter says the bulk of data still support exclusive breastfeeding for at least the first six months as a healthy way to feed newborns and keep them at healthy weights when they grow older. That’s not always easy, however, and the debate over breastfeeding continues to ignite controversy in political and social, as well as medical communities.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/13/understanding-how-breastfeeding-affects-obesity/#ixzz2dQrlSBuO

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2390934/Breastfeeding-months-HALVE-risk-children-obese.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
But only a small number of women in the UK breastfeed their babies for long periods and the number of new mums starting in 2011 fell slightly to 73.9 per cent.
Less than two per cent of babies are breastfed exclusively for six months......At the age of seven, breastfed children were 15 per cent less likely to be overweight and 45 per cent less at risk of obesity.
The reduction in risk of becoming overweight was similar at the age of eight, but the chances of being obese were even lower with a cut in risk of 55 per cent.



Guessing it's the same in Ireland, seems the 'current fashion' is not exactly healthy eh?




Cultural attitudes differ in different countries, it's the height of arrogance to say that Germany has it wrong meanwhile they can afford to have one person at home looking after the children properly and still afford to pay the rent or purchase a house. I know that's not possible for many people, but what I'm saying is the reason why it is not possible is also DUE to the fact that there are so many double earning couples which causes prices of property to shoot up as they compete for housing and banks offered bigger mortgages.

dharma200

Ok , I take some of your points on board, I said after breast feeding is over, if done atall.. I think you are taking a lot of my previous post and turning it to suit your arguments. Men and women are as equipped to raise children after the breast feeding period,mothers is no difference. I can also personalise any posts I wish, personal experience and the experiences I have mentioned, being in the many different roles mentioned,working, not working, using private childcare, and also father being primary carer..... These are all valid points. I am not arguing biology, I am arguing that men, after the breast feeding period are just as able as women, thus the argument that women should stay at home after this period because they are more biologically able, is not true.

The housing market has very very little to do with double earners in my opinion. House prices did not shoot up because of double earners, they shot up because of a false premise on what property was worth at a certain time...

There are govt. incentives to people coming off welfare into the workforce in the way of reduced crèche rates etc. I recognise this has a long way to go, and ofcourse the German model does not suit, because we are not in Germany. I feel I may have personalised my post, but not as much as you generalised the post I was replying too in regards to why women work and why men are less equipped to care for children after the breast feeds g period, which for a huge percentage doesn't actually exist, meaning IMHO men are as equipped to raise children in the home as women, all of which is proven everyday by the huge amount of men who are now, because of the economy, staying at home doing precisely that.

maninasia

I'll be fair and also agree that after a certain age there seems to be no discernible difference between a father or mother looking after children in the home. I'd also say that in the country where we are living now, a large percentage of women also work and don't breastfeed (cosmetic looks and inconvenience and need for double income) and many women (and men) don't even know how to look after the kids as the kids are raised from babies by their grandparents, it's just a very different society again.

As for the double incomes raising property prices, I'm pretty sure there is a correlation in the Irish context (as there was a large influx of working women into the workplace from the 90s on), but it's obviously very much boosted by easy credit and entrance to Euro etc.

I'm not saying that it is wrong that women can have a career and work outside the home, I'm just saying that it certainly had consequences and these consequences were both good and bad, I'm sure for the average woman good overall, but there were side effects that weren't so great..like less breastfeeding, more outsourcing of child rearing, higher property costs etc.

d4v1d

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Actually I've done some calculations of my own and it turns out that if the average rent for a three bed semi in West Kerry is €500 per calendar month, we multiply this by 12 to get the annual, we get €6000, multiply that by 15 to get €90,000 and then multiply that by the Unicorn house price index multiplier, where U=2, we get 90000 x 2 = € 180,000 then... can it be... that's already the median house price for a 3 bed semi in west kerry oh my god it works we have reached the bottom!!!!!!

I recently picked up on this thread and have a question on one of the first batch of replies. The 'Unicorn house price index multiplier', where is this defined? I googled and didn't see any obvious irish results except for one which referred back to this very thread.

Not doubting it exists but would like to look into it some more.

Icepick

:pac:

d4v1d wrote: »

I recently picked up on this thread and have a question on one of the first batch of replies. The 'Unicorn house price index multiplier', where is this defined? I googled and didn't see any obvious irish results except for one which referred back to this very thread.

Not doubting it exists but would like to look into it some more.

:pac:

realitykeeper

The recent improvement in house prices in Dublin may tempt some investors and first timers to buy now. I think that would be a tragic mistake. The double dip is inevitable and it will be much worse than the first.

OMD

maninasia wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm not impressed by the usual 'I'm a mother of XXX kids', 'I'm also a father of xxx kids', I don't think it's very relevant to personalise your statement as we can all do that.

The word fashion was to reply to the accusation of 'being old fashioned' whatever that means. The point I was making was that people decades ago were often better off generally as even though only one member of the household tended to work, housing costs were far more affordable, and with one member of the household at home raising the kids does not need to be outsourced. Whether it is the mother or father looking after the kids is not THAT important. I'm not saying somebody has to stay home till the kids get to college, but taking a few years out should be perfectly acceptable in society! I believe at the minimum any parent should be able to take two years off work (like what happens in France etc) to look after the kids.



Why do people think they can out argue biology? You seen many male fathers in the animal kingdom looking after their progeny? How many male mammals primarily raise their kids? You know how important that bonding and breast milk is between mother and child? It's a powerful and hormonal two way reaction that a father and children just don't have. That doesn't mean that a father cannot raise children, he's just not as well equipped from nature as females. To argue against this is pure PC foolishness.



It's a personal decision of each couple and each individual.



No, you are missing the point, the way society is set up at the moment is that it taxes the hell out of working couples and a lot of that money is used as transfer to other people who simply don't work and in the process people on social welfare also get all these child support grants that a working person doesn't. So these taxes actually allow people on social welfare to choose to stay at home and look after their children but make it difficult for a single earning household to prosper. Now if some of those taxes were diverted to state sponsored childcare for your OWN CHILDREN that would be a big improvement. Or if working people got taxed less so they didn't need to earn so much money and maybe one of them could chuck in a crappy job that they simply don't like in many cases.



You seem to be admitting here that there is a special bond between mother and child! Originally breastfeeding went on for years, and still does in some countries. Breast milk has been proven to boost childrens immune system and also children raised on breast milk have less obesity when older and have higher IQs. While women can express breastmilk it is better if the child suckles directly due to hormonal influences.

So there's at least two years in a child's development where a mother being available to the child full-time is very beneficial. The father can do it, but he's a poor substitute for the real thing.

There's no such thing as 'old fashioned', it doesn't mean anything. During the Celtic Tiger saving was old fashioned. Now saving is in fashion.

Now breast feeding for more than a few months is 'old fashioned' mainly due to the inconvenience of it when working, even though it is PROVEN that kids who stop breastfeeding earlier are more likely to become obese when older.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/13/understanding-how-breastfeeding-affects-obesity/
Feldman-Winter says the bulk of data still support exclusive breastfeeding for at least the first six months as a healthy way to feed newborns and keep them at healthy weights when they grow older. That’s not always easy, however, and the debate over breastfeeding continues to ignite controversy in political and social, as well as medical communities.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/13/understanding-how-breastfeeding-affects-obesity/#ixzz2dQrlSBuO

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2390934/Breastfeeding-months-HALVE-risk-children-obese.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
But only a small number of women in the UK breastfeed their babies for long periods and the number of new mums starting in 2011 fell slightly to 73.9 per cent.
Less than two per cent of babies are breastfed exclusively for six months......At the age of seven, breastfed children were 15 per cent less likely to be overweight and 45 per cent less at risk of obesity.
The reduction in risk of becoming overweight was similar at the age of eight, but the chances of being obese were even lower with a cut in risk of 55 per cent.




Guessing it's the same in Ireland, seems the 'current fashion' is not exactly healthy eh?




Cultural attitudes differ in different countries, it's the height of arrogance to say that Germany has it wrong meanwhile they can afford to have one person at home looking after the children properly and still afford to pay the rent or purchase a house. I know that's not possible for many people, but what I'm saying is the reason why it is not possible is also DUE to the fact that there are so many double earning couples which causes prices of property to shoot up as they compete for housing and banks offered bigger mortgages.

You have a lot of statements there that are simply your opinion nothing more. The benefits of breast feeding after the child is 6 months old are non-existent (the benefits during the first 6 months are not as clear-cut as you imply but that is a different argument). As maternity leave is now over 6 months this point is a red herring.

You imply house prices were affordable when only one person worked but now they are not with 2 working. That is just nonsense so I'm afraid you need to provide evidence.

Icepick

realitykeeper wrote: »

The recent improvement in house prices in Dublin may tempt some investors and first timers to buy now. I think that would be a tragic mistake. The double dip is inevitable and it will be much worse than the first.

This depends.
Houses are expensive, but people continue to be obsessed with poorly-insulated larger-than-needed houses. Plus, the civil service is doing everything they can to avoid market pricing: Nama and banks holding stock and not repossessing, high welfare rates, artificial public employment..).
Why would apartments in established areas go significantly below the current prices? They are already cheaper/same price as any other OECD country, including (much) poorer countries.