If you can't afford a house in Dublin, move!

thegills

NIMAN wrote:

You picked me up wrong, I wasn't in any way slagging Dublin, but maybe Government policy should try to locate some big businesses, people, homes etc elsehwere?

I can see how that conversation went. Facebook: we plan to hire 1000 staff with an average age of 25. Looking for somewhere that would appeal to them. Government: we have the perfect location for you, Mullingar.

Wurly

bananabread12 wrote: »

Since when did it become the responsibility of society to guarantee high paying jobs for low skilled workers?

I said there was a need for jobs paying a certain level so that people can afford rent.

You said to abolish social housing.

Whether you like it or not, we have a portion of the population who do not have the education to get the high paying jobs needed to pay the high rents.

So where do those people go?

And let's say they have debt. Because as any poor person can attest, falling behind on even one utility bill can cause MASSIVE problems down the line when you've so little money coming in.

So how do they get access to the education?

And let's say they have addiction issues, literacy issues or mental health problems.

How do we take care of those things so that these people are able to participate in the workforce?

I'm not attributing the responsibility to anyone.

I'm asking you for your opinion. You said that social housing should be abolished? Right so... How do we solve the other problems that are factually there after we abolish the social housing?

I'm actually looking for your opinions.

Ray Palmer

myshirt wrote: »

Why is it that Berlin can fit the whole population of Ireland into the same space as Dublin and still service them well. And I mean really well. Look at the like for like average commuting time comparisons for a sample of journeys. Make sure you have a stiff whiskey by your side. Look at the cost of living, look at how much is within touching distance no matter where you are. Look at their healthcare costs. If we could replicate, we could double the healthcare impact on a lot more Irish lives, and for half the cost we currently incur via the HSE. COE's.

Well Berlin was the capital of a much much bigger country than Ireland with massive amount more money for well over a 100 years. This gave them the ability to build much more expensive infrastructure.
Then there was a massive war which destroyed huge chunks of the city. Both sides of the city got massive investment and they also didn't have to deal with private ownership at this point as they had sweeping laws. The communist side could do exactly as they liked. They put large families in 2 bed apartments without washing facilities etc...
Then when the wall came down they had massive amounts of land in the heart of the city to build on.
So to answer your question massive amounts of money pumped into the city for a very long time, laws that seized land, ignored building regulation and free land. After WWII Ireland was broke and landowners kept the property they owned and let it deteriorate. You might as well be asking why Clonakilty isn't like Dublin

Wheeliebin30

"The exact number of the homeless people is still unknown, as Germany, unlike many other European countries does not have the related statistical data to this phenomena. However, a support organization for the homeless has approximate numbers. According to this estimate, roughly 335.000 people had no homes in 2014, among which around 39.000 people live entirely on the streets. In addition, the number of homeless people is expected to be increasing. The number of people coming from various European countries with the hope of a better life and jobs and the insufficiency of housing opportunities also lead to the increase in the number of homeless people"

What's this lads?

Nearly 40 times as many homeless in Germany than Ireland?

Yeah but Ireland is a ****hole and the Gubberment don't care about its citizens.

Now Germany on the other hand. What a utopia.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

"The exact number of the homeless people is still unknown, as Germany, unlike many other European countries does not have the related statistical data to this phenomena. However, a support organization for the homeless has approximate numbers. According to this estimate, roughly 335.000 people had no homes in 2014, among which around 39.000 people live entirely on the streets. In addition, the number of homeless people is expected to be increasing. The number of people coming from various European countries with the hope of a better life and jobs and the insufficiency of housing opportunities also lead to the increase in the number of homeless people"

What's this lads?

Nearly 40 times as many homeless in Germany than Ireland?

Yeah but Ireland is a ****hole and the Gubberment don't care about its citizens.

Now Germany on the other hand. What a utopia.

This makes homelessness in Ireland ok?

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

This makes homelessness in Ireland ok?

Good one.

No someone is advocating Berlin as some utopia and Ireland as some ****hole.

Bit of perspective is needed.

myshirt

^^^^^^^

Yes, I take your point, but don't forget all the money that Helmut Kohl gave to Ireland.

I'm not saying let's be Berlin. I'm saying to quote Boris Johnson that 'it is not beyond the wit of man' for us to do better. We have enough brains in this country to do better. It's time for Ireland to grow up and stop this Mickey mouse paw out parish pump culture we have.

Stop start stop start infrastructural programmes, current expenditure over capital, paying public servants more money, bending over to the unions, ignoring blatant piss poor public sector performance, rewarding blatant piss poor public sector performance, all need to go if Ireland is to grow up.

Hotblack Desiato

myshirt wrote: »

Why is it that Berlin can fit the whole population of Ireland into the same space as Dublin and still service them well. And I mean really well.

It's because they're not governed by a bunch of hicks whose mission in life is to do their capital down.

Hotblack Desiato

Liamario wrote: »

People outside Dublin pay taxes too believe it or not, they're also seeing less of the benefit.

Not even remotely true. The taxes of Dubliners subsidise the rest of the country.

bananabread12

Wurly wrote: »

I said there was a need for jobs paying a certain level so that people can afford rent.

So you're suggesting that we throw the law of economics out the window altogether by centrally planning wage rates? Do you think low-skilled jobs should be paid beyond their societal and economic contribution?

Whether you like it or not, we have a portion of the population who do not have the education to get the high paying jobs needed to pay the high rents.

It's not a case of whether I like it or not, the reality is that it isn't the responsibility of society to guarantee everyone that wants to live in Dublin a property. If you can't afford to live in Dublin, you look for accommodation elsewhere. It's as simple as that really.

So where do those people go?

Down the country or to places that are more suitable to their income.

And let's say they have debt. Because as any poor person can attest, falling behind on even one utility bill can cause MASSIVE problems down the line when you've so little money coming in.

The thing is they do have money coming in. Nobody goes hungry in this country - no one. We live in a system that pays those out of employment nearly 200 Euro a week. If you have popped out a few kids, the taxpayers support you with even more. If you've no home, you get put up in a hotel while awaiting a free home you'll pay a few quid a week on - all on the public purse.

The problem is not having little money coming in, the problem is that some people expect to live at the same standard of employed persons while being a net drain on society. They want cars, 50 inch televisions, the newest mobile phones, the latest clothes, a subscription to Sky, Netflix ect. Money for a piss-up weekend, gamble money, daily cigarettes ect ect. They expect to live at the same standard.....that is utterly insane. Anywhere else in the world - if you don't work, you don't get to enjoy the benefits of it. Simple.

So how do they get access to the education?

There are many opportunities available for those who wish to pursue an education or to up-skill. The problem is that they don't see the benefit of doing so because they get everything handed to them. It's a vicious cycle too because what message are we sending to their kids? A whole generation has grown up devoid of the values and ideals that make people successful in life - education, a work ethic, independence, ambition, employment.

And let's say they have addiction issues, literacy issues or mental health problems.

There are many people with addiction and mental health problems - that is not an issue restricted or exclusive to the groups we're discussing.

How do we take care of those things so that these people are able to participate in the workforce?

It's not the responsibility of society to hold the hands of adults through life. A fully grown adult needs to learn to take some personal responsibility for themselves. If you cannot afford to have kids or support a child, don't have one. If your income does not warrant or justify living in a highly sought after area of Dublin city, move somewhere more suitable. When are fully grown adults going to be treated like adults in this country and not like children who are in need of nursing from cradle to grave?

I'm not attributing the responsibility to anyone.

You are though - your questions all start with "How do we", "What do we do" ect..
You think it is our problem to sort out every single little issue. I don't believe it is fair that someone who has made the right decisions in life (regardless of where they are from) needs to be punished by having to support the fecklessness of others. If anything, these successful people need to be treated as role models whose actions, values and ideals are to be mimicked, followed, recreated.

When a child asks "daddy, how does that man live in that big house?". The proper response should be "he went to university and got a great job, son", not "come on, ye little bollox, down to the dole office that the man who lives in there props up".

I'm asking you for your opinion. You said that social housing should be abolished? Right so... How do we solve the other problems that are factually there after we abolish the social housing?

If you abolish the social housing then you stop the ghetto-isation and the creation of an anti-social, criminal and destructive culture that festers in these areas, that has become a serious inter-generational problem, and that can only recede through the curbing of the welfare state. The number one concept in economics is that if you subsidise something, you get more of it. If you pay people not to work, you get more unemployment. If you pay people to have kids, you'll get more kids. If you give free housing to people, the demand for free housing will go up.

Stop supporting childbirth and the birthrate will fall. Single women will seek employment, gain experience and may pursue education instead of having children early.

wakka12

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

"The exact number of the homeless people is still unknown, as Germany, unlike many other European countries does not have the related statistical data to this phenomena. However, a support organization for the homeless has approximate numbers. According to this estimate, roughly 335.000 people had no homes in 2014, among which around 39.000 people live entirely on the streets. In addition, the number of homeless people is expected to be increasing. The number of people coming from various European countries with the hope of a better life and jobs and the insufficiency of housing opportunities also lead to the increase in the number of homeless people"

What's this lads?

Nearly 40 times as many homeless in Germany than Ireland?

Yeah but Ireland is a ****hole and the Gubberment don't care about its citizens.

Now Germany on the other hand. What a utopia.

Germanys population is nearly twenty times that of Ireland, firstly
But yes I agree, people completely blinded to the fact that Ireland has among the highest quality of life in the world for 99.9% of it's population and that the homelessness situation is only roughly the same as other western nations if not a lot better in a lot of cases (compared to canada and usa for example)

Wheeliebin30

wakka12 wrote: »

Germanys population is nearly twenty times that of Ireland, firstly
But yes I agree, people completely blinded to the fact that Ireland has among the highest quality of life in the world for 99.9% of it's population and that the homelessness situation is only roughly the same as other western nations if not a lot better in a lot of cases (compared to canada and usa for example)

What?


So the population of a country determines how many homeless it has?

Utter nonsense.

I agree with the rest though.

I think irish people have been so spoiled and looked after through the years that they suddenly think Ireland is the only country with homeless people because it's a new phenomenon in this country or health problems
for example.

Simple fact is these issues have been here in every country going right back.

Ray Palmer

myshirt wrote: »

^^^^^^^

Yes, I take your point, but don't forget all the money that Helmut Kohl gave to Ireland.

I'm not saying let's be Berlin. I'm saying to quote Boris Johnson that 'it is not beyond the wit of man' for us to do better. We have enough brains in this country to do better. It's time for Ireland to grow up and stop this Mickey mouse paw out parish pump culture we have.

Stop start stop start infrastructural programmes, current expenditure over capital, paying public servants more money, bending over to the unions, ignoring blatant piss poor public sector performance, rewarding blatant piss poor public sector performance, all need to go if Ireland is to grow up.

For Ireland to grow up people like yourself need to understand the basic principle of history. You can't just double the heat in an oven to cook a chicken quicker. Dublin doesn't have the infrastructure of other places because it didn't build them decades or a century ago. To build it now would cost more than it did back then and will cost much more now. Laws now stop some of the down right theft of rights and property to do it.

The money pumped into other countries after WWII was huge and unprecedented requiring rationing to continue. We were on our knees. You can go into politics of it but essentially pride overrode sensible financial decisions which is common in post colonial countries.

maryishere

thegills wrote: »

I can see how that conversation went. Facebook: we plan to hire 1000 staff with an average age of 25. Looking for somewhere that would appeal to them. Government: we have the perfect location for you, Mullingar.

If facebook want a place they should move to somewhere along the Wild Atlantic Way. Somewhere where their employees could have a high quality of life, go surfing, walking on beaches and on the mountains etc. Plus accommodation costs, building costs, even the pint of Guinness is cheaper there. Plus less traffic and pollution. Simples.

VinLieger

maryishere wrote: »

If facebook want a place they should move to somewhere along the Wild Atlantic Way. Somewhere where their employees could have a high quality of life, go surfing, walking on beaches and on the mountains etc. Plus accommodation costs, building costs, even the pint of Guinness is cheaper there. Plus less traffic and pollution. Simples.

Building costs are more in remote places your describing due to transport, they locate to cities cus the infrastructure is available to support their large operations, your suggestions show your clueless to the requirements of operations the size of facebooks ireland office

Galwayguy35

Wurly wrote: »

I said there was a need for jobs paying a certain level so that people can afford rent.

You said to abolish social housing.

Whether you like it or not, we have a portion of the population who do not have the education to get the high paying jobs needed to pay the high rents.

So where do those people go?

And let's say they have debt. Because as any poor person can attest, falling behind on even one utility bill can cause MASSIVE problems down the line when you've so little money coming in.

So how do they get access to the education?

And let's say they have addiction issues, literacy issues or mental health problems.

How do we take care of those things so that these people are able to participate in the workforce?

I'm not attributing the responsibility to anyone.

I'm asking you for your opinion. You said that social housing should be abolished? Right so... How do we solve the other problems that are factually there after we abolish the social housing?

I'm actually looking for your opinions.

They go where they can afford to live same as the rest of us did, life isn't a bed of roses and we have to adapt and deal with the various situations that arise from time to time.

As for education, the tools are there but if people refuse to learn because they are not interested not much can be done.

Galwayguy35

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not even remotely true. The taxes of Dubliners subsidise the rest of the country.

How exactly is a Dubliners taxes subsiding me?

I'm entitled to nothing and pay of everything.

Brioscai

The government need to invest in building, apartments where permitted and lower density housing on the outskirts of cities. Estates and blocks should be mixed tendencies, social, affordable and market rate... with decent facilities.

The government have created a situation whereby you go on the housing list and if wait long enough, you can get a house at a hugely discounted rate through tenant purchase schemes. People refuse apartments on this basis.

Nettle Soup

maryishere wrote: »

If facebook want a place they should move to somewhere along the Wild Atlantic Way. Somewhere where their employees could have a high quality of life, go surfing, walking on beaches and on the mountains etc. Plus accommodation costs, building costs, even the pint of Guinness is cheaper there. Plus less traffic and pollution. Simples.

Exactly. Having worked in Dublin for too many years, I reckon it should be awful easy to persuade people to move west provided the jobs are there. The quality of life between Dublin and the west coast are incomparable. Only true Dubliners want to live in Dublin.

Hotblack Desiato

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

How exactly is a Dubliners taxes subsiding me?

I'm entitled to nothing and pay of everything.

Dublin, and IIRC Cork, are the only counties where the government collects more than it spends.

Hotblack Desiato

maryishere wrote: »

Somewhere where their employees could have a high quality of life, go surfing, walking on beaches and on the mountains etc.

You can do all of those things in Dublin. Well, windsurfing instead of surfing, if you want to be picky.

less pollution. Simples.

Not water pollution though, Dublin's water is the cleanest in the country.

Hotblack Desiato

Nettle Soup wrote: »

The quality of life between Dublin and the west coast are incomparable. Only true Dubliners want to live in Dublin.

I live in Dublin and my family has a great quality of life, thanks.

What would really improve the city would be if all the whingers did us a favour and went back to their rural idylls :rolleyes:

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

It's not a case of whether I like it or not, the reality is that it isn't the responsibility of society to guarantee everyone that wants to live in Dublin a property.

it is if the alternative will cost me more, as in i have to have my taxes implementing resources that don't exist outside dublin.

bananabread12 wrote: »

If you can't afford to live in Dublin, you look for accommodation elsewhere. It's as simple as that really.

wrong. it's not as simple as that at all. dublin is where the most jobs and resources are and that is where the people will want to be.

bananabread12 wrote: »

Down the country or to places that are more suitable to their income.

not financially viable or cost effective for the tax payer.

bananabread12 wrote: »

The thing is they do have money coming in. Nobody goes hungry in this country - no one. We live in a system that pays those out of employment nearly 200 Euro a week. If you have popped out a few kids, the taxpayers support you with even more. If you've no home, you get put up in a hotel while awaiting a free home you'll pay a few quid a week on - all on the public purse.

we may have supports in place but that doesn't get away from the fact our housing rents are going to become among the most expensive in europe if we don't clamp down now.

bananabread12 wrote: »

The problem is not having little money coming in, the problem is that some people expect to live at the same standard of employed persons while being a net drain on society. They want cars, 50 inch televisions, the newest mobile phones, the latest clothes, a subscription to Sky, Netflix ect. Money for a piss-up weekend, gamble money, daily cigarettes ect ect. They expect to live at the same standard.....that is utterly insane.

yeah sure they do. a small minority maybe but not the majority.

bananabread12 wrote: »

Anywhere else in the world - if you don't work, you don't get to enjoy the benefits of it. Simple.

you do. simple. work only entitles you to a wage, nothing else.

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

There are many opportunities available for those who wish to pursue an education or to up-skill.

not always.

bananabread12 wrote: »

The problem is that they don't see the benefit of doing so because they get everything handed to them.

they don't get everything handed to them.

bananabread12 wrote: »

It's a vicious cycle too because what message are we sending to their kids? A whole generation has grown up devoid of the values and ideals that make people successful in life - education, a work ethic, independence, ambition, employment.

it's not our job to send a message.

bananabread12 wrote: »

It's not the responsibility of society to hold the hands of adults through life. A fully grown adult needs to learn to take some personal responsibility for themselves.

most do, but that won't stop issues from happening beyond people's control.

bananabread12 wrote: »

If you cannot afford to have kids or support a child, don't have one.

not going to happen so your simplistic statements mean nothing.

bananabread12 wrote: »

If your income does not warrant or justify living in a highly sought after area of Dublin city, move somewhere more suitable.

no, they must stay in dublin if they are from dublin and work in dublin as it keeps over all expence for the tax payer low. income warrenting or justifying is no longer relevant as it breathes self entitlement.

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

When are fully grown adults going to be treated like adults in this country and not like children who are in need of nursing from cradle to grave?

they all ready are. of course the reality doesn't meet your hard done by and let them eat grass agenda.

bananabread12 wrote: »

You think it is our problem to sort out every single little issue. I don't believe it is fair that someone who has made the right decisions in life (regardless of where they are from) needs to be punished by having to support the fecklessness of others.

we aren't being punished, and it's very fair that as a society we are obligated to support those in need.

bananabread12 wrote: »

If anything, these successful people need to be treated as role models whose actions, values and ideals are to be mimicked, followed, recreated.

we are. but it's not going to always work and you will have to suck it up.

bananabread12 wrote: »

When a child asks "daddy, how does that man live in that big house?". The proper response should be "he went to university and got a great job, son", not "come on, ye little bollox, down to the dole office that the man who lives in there props up".

no point as much of university doesn't even guarantee you a job now.

bananabread12 wrote: »

If you abolish the social housing then you stop the ghetto-isation and the creation of an anti-social, criminal and destructive culture that festers in these areas, that has become a serious inter-generational problem, and that can only recede through the curbing of the welfare state.

wrong, this has been proven false. the wellfare state has to stay to support those who are unemployable, and it's removal would lead to even more crime.

bananabread12 wrote: »

The number one concept in economics is that if you subsidise something, you get more of it. If you pay people not to work, you get more unemployment. If you pay people to have kids, you'll get more kids. If you give free housing to people, the demand for free housing will go up.

there is no evidence for that.

bananabread12 wrote: »

Stop supporting childbirth and the birthrate will fall. Single women will seek employment, gain experience and may pursue education instead of having children early.

delusianel i'm afraid. this has also been proven false. i used to believe the same nonsense as you but then i finally discovered the reality. look wishful thinking and latching on to simplistic nonsense to solve problems is nice, but unfortunately we have to live in the real world and the real world is not one bit simplistic.

bananabread12

^^ You have contributed literally nothing to the discussion over the last three posts apart from parrot the same old tired tidbits...."not going to happen", "can't do that", "that's not reality"....

Why don't you come back when you're in a position to present a thoroughly researched argument as to why an individual that cannot afford to live in an area be supplied a property from the State free of charge? It's this same anti-intellectual theoretical and pseudoreligious drivel that is entirely devoid of any remote scientific empiricism. The market is scientific, your ideology is not.

I want to live in a penthouse apartment in NYC and holiday in my villa in Monaco....have you any idea why I don't live in my penthouse suite in NYC or holiday in my Monaco villa? Because I can't afford to own a penthouse apartment in NYC or maintain a holiday villa in Monaco. We all want things in life, it's precisely why we labour out of bed every pissing morning....

And of course we have evidence that subsidisation leads to increases in whatever it is we're subsidising. This isn't an opinion, it isn't subjective. This is an economic concept every undergraduate economics student learns in his/her first week at university. Again with your anti-intellectualism. You're an anti-science ideologue.

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

^^ You have contributed literally nothing to the discussion over the last three posts apart from parrot the same old tired tidbits...."not going to happen", "can't do that", "that's not reality"....

Why don't you come back when you're in a position to present a thoroughly researched argument as to why an individual that cannot afford to live in an area be supplied a property from the State free of charge? It's this same anti-intellectual theoretical and pseudoreligious drivel that is entirely devoid of any remote scientific empiricism. The market is scientific, your ideology is not.

I want to live in a penthouse apartment in NYC and holiday in my villa in Monaco....have you any idea why I don't live in my penthouse suite in NYC or holiday in my Monaco villa? Because I can't afford to own a penthouse apartment in NYC or maintain a holiday villa in Monaco. We all want things in life, it's precisely why we labour out of bed every pissing morning....

And of course we have evidence that subsidisation leads to increases in whatever it is we're subsidising. This isn't an opinion, it isn't subjective. This is an economic concept every undergraduate economics student learns in his/her first week at university. Again with your anti-intellectualism. You're an anti-science ideologue.

the state does not supply properties free of charge. tenants in social housing are required to pay rent on a per term basis as per their contract. usually an amount per week. we have no evidence that subsidisation leads to increases in whatever it is we're subsidising.

Nika Bolokov

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

How about we send skangers and junkies who contribute nothing to the country somewhere instead and keep the EE who work and pay taxes.

I hear Mullingar has room ?

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

the state does not supply properties free of charge. tenants in social housing are required to pay rent on a per term basis as per their contract. usually an amount per week. we have no evidence that subsidisation leads to increases in whatever it is we're subsidising.

FFS.



I understand that simple scientific concepts like supply and demand diagrams are antithetical to your pseudoreligion but as you can see the market equilibrium resides at Q. Subsidising pushes the supply curve RIGHT and thus gives us a new artificial equilibrium of Q1. When you subsidise something, you get more of it - it doesn't matter whether it's apples, buses, grass, unemployment or houses. This is a scientific fact and an economic law.

How good of the State to give options for housing wherever one wishes to live. Pure fantasy.

MarcusP12

maryishere wrote: »

thegills wrote: »

I can see how that conversation went. Facebook: we plan to hire 1000 staff with an average age of 25. Looking for somewhere that would appeal to them. Government: we have the perfect location for you, Mullingar.

If facebook want a place they should move to somewhere along the Wild Atlantic Way. Somewhere where their employees could have a high quality of life, go surfing, walking on beaches and on the mountains etc. Plus accommodation costs, building costs, even the pint of Guinness is cheaper there. Plus less traffic and pollution. Simples.

I doubt accommodation costs, building costs, traffic and pollution would magically stay the same if big employers suddenly decided to locate west....