Cost of living

Viscount Aggro

What matters is the number you are left with at end of every month. You have control over that number, by managing outgoings.
For most people, they cant easily increase their income. Someone on 40K could be wealthier than someone on 80K, because they avoided lifestyle inflation.

I laugh when people talk about employees in Google, Facebook etc.
Fact is, most of these are McJobs, foreign workers, working to pay high rents, running to stand still financially.

CroFag

Politicians: tax in Ireland is high but it is spent on public sector wages and social welfare - which is basically politicians buying their way into power (As well as bailing out the latest government-approved get rich quick scheme that went belly up (insurance, banks etc) - but that is soft corruption stuff that they do once they've bought their way into power).
Since they spend so much on these things, there is no money to spend on infrastructure.

Ok, so what do you want changed? Less people on the doll obviously, but would it worsen the poverty & homelessness crisis?

13 billion given as a present to Apple & all the other cases we don't know about could bring the money for infrastructure, right?

fash

CroFag wrote: »

Ok, so what do you want changed? Less people on the doll obviously, but would it worsen the poverty & homelessness crisis?

13 billion given as a present to Apple & all the other cases we don't know about could bring the money for infrastructure, right?

it's actually things like money wasted in the health service paying for office people who are not needed, paying for five people to do the job of 1 person etc. Long term dole in Ireland is high, but it's things like people on unchecked long term illness benefit that are more problematic for the social welfare spend

tayto lover

When people pay all their bills there simply isn't enough money left for wee treats for themselves. 8 euro for a feckin tea and sandwich in a cafe is outrageous. 4.60 for a pint in some places is taking the mickey.

kilopret

CroFag wrote: »

@kilopret, you wanna have a discussion about the cost of living without mentioning the biggest cost, one of lodging?

What post is this in relation, is it the one where I said "I didnt understand how it was related"?
I'm not against looking at rent or housing costs, I know there high and thats bad.I just didn't understand the posters comment in relation to my own and was hoping for more clarification.
Basically, I'm interested in if this or any past government was interested in doing anything about the cost of living because of the detrimental effect I perceive it to have on the economy. Because they seem to be glaringly obvious to me and I would assume that there is a good reason why this isn't been followed.

server down

CroFag wrote: »

I'm originally E.European & a country that had a brutal civil war in the 90-ies, still the infrastructure is way better than in IRL, even though the Irish GDP is 4 times bigger! In whose interest is it that this country is so backwards in public infrastructure?

It’s actually the right wingers who oppose major infrastructure policies or just support roads, and then blame the cost of the public service for it.

An example here. A leading aconomist warns against over heating by spending on capital infrastructure (but he would equally oppose spending in a bust).

https://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/costly-temptations-run-the-risk-of-overheating-economy-36185108.html

He supports another ring road around Dublin, while avoiding why the M50 is a car park (lack of public transport), he supports road spending but opposes metro north as being too expensive while a “much better bus connects” program would work.

Of course in any one spending program it might be that you could get better results with upgraded bus lines over the first 5 years but over 20-40 years you need a metro line, then 4 more.

In your communist country they built infrastructure and proper transportation.

server down

fash wrote: »

Please read what I wrote again.

That’s exactly what you said.

fash

server down wrote: »

fash wrote: »

Please read what I wrote again.

That’s exactly what you said.

Read it again: I said "worker insecurity" ( i.e. the ability to hire/fire at will) in certain areas is very likely to be better for the economy. What is good for the economy is not necessarily what you believe is good for society however. However if you want a society which affords itself luxuries that are not economically efficient ( i.e. for social reasons), you need to offset that inefficiency elsewhere within your economy

kilopret

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well perhaps in trying to figure out how they would go about doing it in a way that would be acceptable to the voter, you will realise that in reality it difficult to impossible to do it.

Furthermore, trying to compete on cost is simply a race to the bottom. That is why like all other modern economies we try to concentrate in producing high value added products instead.

I dont think its a race to the bottom, Ireland shouldn't have as high a cost of living as it does. I suspect its more of a thing of where business like shops and cafes wont drop below a certain price in order that they can benefit from inflated prices.

Heres an example, you can build a 2000sqft house in the country for around 260k, probably less.Usually people who do this type of build have to hire the builders,contractors and do it all part time,because of work commitments. But then I hear that professional building companies wont build 10 or 20 houses as part of an estate and sell them for less then 300k.

You would think 1000sqft house would be constructed for around 180k, given how much the 2000sqft house costs.Not only that, you would be building 10-20 of them. SO even if you sold them at 250 a house,thats 70k profit per house, which is about 1.4 million profit from the whole development.
For a years work, that's not bad.

I wasn't in favor of price controls but considering how much we are inflated maybe that's the only solution to tackling the issue. Either that or some sort of movement where people boycot certain places that are adding to the issue.

Wanderer78

fash wrote: »

Politicians: tax in Ireland is high but it is spent on public sector wages and social welfare - which is basically politicians buying their way into power (As well as bailing out the latest government-approved get rich quick scheme that went belly up (insurance, banks etc) - but that is soft corruption stuff that they do once they've bought their way into power).
Since they spend so much on these things, there is no money to spend on infrastructure.

maybe we need to rethink money, how its created and distributed!

fash

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so again, lets break this down, having a healthy economy in some cases means we must have an unhealthy society? if this is the case, what are the benefits of a healthy economy? /quote]
A healthy economy allows a country to afford luxuries ( i.e. inefficiencies). Furthermore certain things which increase efficiency in the economy have knock on benefits for those living nearby: good motorways are not just good for truck drivers, they are good for visiting your parents in that other city. London had fantastic infrastructure- which means you can get anywhere from anywhere 24 hrs a day- that infrastructure was paid for by a good economy.

fash

Wanderer78 wrote: »

maybe we need to rethink money, how its created and distributed!

The creation of money is not a problem: Zimbabwe was creating quadrillion dollar notes. Creating value in the economy is the issue.

The issue of "redistribution" - or rather spending and wastage by the government on day to day spending is particularly problematic in Ireland- given the exceptionally poor quality of Irish infrastructure despite being one of the richest countries in the world.

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

maybe we need to rethink money, how its created and distributed!

The thread is about the cost of living. Take this soapboxing elsewhere.

fash

kilopret wrote: »

Heres an example, you can build a 2000sqft house in the country for around 260k, probably less.Usually people who do this type of build have to hire the builders,contractors and do it all part time,because of work commitments. But then I hear that professional building companies wont build 10 or 20 houses as part of an estate and sell them for less then 300k.

You would think 1000sqft house would be constructed for around 180k, given how much the 2000sqft house costs.Not only that, you would be building 10-20 of them. SO even if you sold them at 250 a house,thats 70k profit per house, which is about 1.4 million profit from the whole development.
For a years work, that's not bad.

I wasn't in favor of price controls but considering how much we are inflated maybe that's the only solution to tackling the issue. Either that or some sort of movement where people boycot certain places that are adding to the issue.

The problem for developers in Ireland is risk: Ireland is a boom/bust place. Say you had €500k in cash - which you earned the old fashioned way, i.e. by working. That is a lot of time and effort on your part. Would you want to sink that into developing a housing estate which if everything goes perfectly and the economy holds up in 4 years time you make 10% return? How risky is Ireland? What will the effects of brexit be? When will the government next smash the economy into the ground? If Ireland was a more normal country with more normal cycles, you would have developers with lower risk profiles - and hence (to some extent) lower prices. So while yes they are charging a lot- especially at the moment, limiting profit would simply mean no-one builds anything.

kilopret

fash wrote: »

The problem for developers in Ireland is risk: Ireland is a boom/bust place. Say you had €500k in cash - which you earned the old fashioned way, i.e. by working. That is a lot of time and effort on your part. Would you want to sink that into developing a housing estate which if everything goes perfectly and the economy holds up in 4 years time you make 10% return? How risky is Ireland? What will the effects of brexit be? When will the government next smash the economy into the ground? If Ireland was a more normal country with more normal cycles, you would have developers with lower risk profiles - and hence (to some extent) lower prices. So while yes they are charging a lot- especially at the moment, limiting profit would simply mean no-one builds anything.

I can understand the risk/reward point, but I don't think that example stands.
If I have ~500k and say build 3 houses, 170 each I think that's 510 total.
If I sell for 250k each that's 80k profit per house, 240k in total. That's nearly 50% return.This is even without discounting supply and demand discounts,not to mention the efficiency you would gain from doing this over and over.

Would I make that risk in the current economic situation in Ireland,absolutely.
Is there anything else that can be done with 500k that can give a near 50% return in less then a year, please let me know!

In this regard, I'm surprised the government isnt investing in housing given the current circumstances. They would make a reasonable amount of cash and help with the housing crises.

But, coming back to my original point, I think this is a larger issue with our expectations.Its almost like we dont value reasonable profit margins.Like there is a sense that, I wont get out of bed for less the a 40% return.And I think this is down to the cost of living being so high, that we are unable to be satisfied by,what would be naturally, a healthy profit. My only problem with this is how badly it effects our country in the long run.

server down

fash wrote: »

The problem for developers in Ireland is risk: Ireland is a boom/bust place. Say you had €500k in cash - which you earned the old fashioned way, i.e. by working. That is a lot of time and effort on your part. Would you want to sink that into developing a housing estate which if everything goes perfectly and the economy holds up in 4 years time you make 10% return? How risky is Ireland? What will the effects of brexit be? When will the government next smash the economy into the ground? If Ireland was a more normal country with more normal cycles, you would have developers with lower risk profiles - and hence (to some extent) lower prices. So while yes they are charging a lot- especially at the moment, limiting profit would simply mean no-one builds anything.

Ireland wasn’t boom bust until 2008. Not in property anyway. In fact previous recessions didn’t have huge effects on prices.

server down

fash wrote: »

Read it again: I said "worker insecurity" ( i.e. the ability to hire/fire at will) in certain areas is very likely to be better for the economy. What is good for the economy is not necessarily what you believe is good for society however. However if you want a society which affords itself luxuries that are not economically efficient ( i.e. for social reasons), you need to offset that inefficiency elsewhere within your economy

Actually what is not good for workers is not good for society and not good either for the economy.

Insecure workers don’t buy stuff.

server down

kilopret wrote: »

I can understand the risk/reward point, but I don't think that example stands.
If I have ~500k and say build 3 houses, 170 each I think that's 510 total.
If I sell for 250k each that's 80k profit per house, 240k in total. That's nearly 50% return.This is even without discounting supply and demand discounts,not to mention the efficiency you would gain from doing this over and over.

Would I make that risk in the current economic situation in Ireland,absolutely.
Is there anything else that can be done with 500k that can give a near 50% return in less then a year, please let me know!

In this regard, I'm surprised the government isnt investing in housing given the current circumstances. They would make a reasonable amount of cash and help with the housing crises.

But, coming back to my original point, I think this is a larger issue with our expectations.Its almost like we dont value reasonable profit margins.Like there is a sense that, I wont get out of bed for less the a 40% return.And I think this is down to the cost of living being so high, that we are unable to be satisfied by,what would be naturally, a healthy profit. My only problem with this is how badly it effects our country in the long run.

It’s much higher if you leverage of course. The banks used to leverage at up to 90%. The profits were enormous. Of course they ploughed it all back in to the next development.

FreudianSlippers

gar32 wrote: »

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/ireland

Until this is sorted out there is nothing that will be cheap in Ireland. !!!!

US national debt is about $19tn and yet they have fairly low cost of living, so your conclusion is invalid.

James Brown

server down wrote: »

It’s much higher if you leverage of course. The banks used to leverage at up to 90%. The profits were enormous. Of course they ploughed it all back in to the next development.

Isn't NAMA being re-purposed to deliver loans to private developers at rates much lower than available through banks/traditional lenders?

It seems the state getting into the building of houses is ridiculous but funding the private investment in similar is financially sound?
It's ironic that some of this money comes directly from the leavings of the previous property crash.

I'm not sure where tax payer funded loans to private concerns to build and sell for as high a price as possible, is a good deal for the tax payer, especially those tax payers who cannot afford these, if pursued, government backed artificially inflated prices.

It looks like we used tax payer money to bolster a failed economy and any money garnered from failed developers and other concerns is to be used to put them in profit at favourable rates, because building homes the tax payer cannot afford will ease the housing crisis?

Tony EH

tayto lover wrote: »

When people pay all their bills there simply isn't enough money left for wee treats for themselves. 8 euro for a feckin tea and sandwich in a cafe is outrageous. 4.60 for a pint in some places is taking the mickey.

Where you getting pints for 4.60 Tayto? The Average Guinness is 5 quid around town.

Was in there a while back and we dropped into one of these fancy joints, one of these new style bars full of posers. I usually prefer normal pub type pubs.

The pint was nearly 7.00.

I handed it back and said no way.

Seriously, fuck that.

MayoSalmon

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

US national debt is about $19tn and yet they have fairly low cost of living, so your conclusion is invalid.

Also countries like Italy have a far lower cost of living than here and way more debt to GDP

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/italy

kilopret

So I'm gathering from this discussion that the cost of living is a problem for everyone and the country as a whole would be far better off if we could reduce it.

I suppose the question is how.
The most obvious ways are price controls,tax incentives for selling below a certain price.
From these posts it seems like a very obvious problem,does anyone know why the government dosent pursue it?

blanch152

kilopret wrote: »

So I'm gathering from this discussion that the cost of living is a problem for everyone and the country as a whole would be far better off if we could reduce it.

I suppose the question is how.
The most obvious ways are price controls,tax incentives for selling below a certain price.
From these posts it seems like a very obvious problem,does anyone know why the government dosent pursue it?

Price controls rarely work, generally the result is they restrict supply.

Seth Brundle

kilopret wrote: »

I suppose the question is how.
The most obvious ways are price controls,tax incentives for selling below a certain price.
From these posts it seems like a very obvious problem,does anyone know why the government dosent pursue it?

Because they know that as much as they tinker around the edges, they won't be able to do very much.
Show me somewhere where reducing the cost of living worked out successfully?

MayoSalmon

kilopret wrote:

I suppose the question is how. The most obvious ways are price controls,tax incentives for selling below a certain price. From these posts it seems like a very obvious problem,does anyone know why the government dosent pursue it?

To reduce the cost of living you simply reduce taxation. Reducing taxation will also reduce poverty etc

Not exactly rocket science

oscarBravo

MayoSalmon wrote: »

To reduce the cost of living you simply reduce taxation. Reducing taxation will also reduce poverty etc

Not exactly rocket science

How'd that work out for Kansas?

Jim2007

MayoSalmon wrote: »

To reduce the cost of living you simply reduce taxation. Reducing taxation will also reduce poverty etc

Not exactly rocket science

Right and who will you pay for state services etc.... oh perhaps you could privatise them and allow companies to make large profits on them....

A bit of rocket science would not go a miss, rather than this nonsense.

MayoSalmon

Jim2007 wrote:

Right and who will you pay for state services etc.... oh perhaps you could privatise them and allow companies to make large profits on them....

First of all state services are inefficient and poor. Just look at the black hole of health.

Secondly I am talking about income tax. All these state services that you think you need can be funded without thieving people's wealth.

MayoSalmon

oscarBravo wrote:

How'd that work out for Kansas?

Well they never cut there spending so terribly