Property Market 2018

Cyrus

OwlsZat wrote: »

Nobody "thinks" anything. Millennial ARE the first generation that won't be richer than the previous. Don't mix this up with us thinking we have it rough etc., the standard of living continues to improve. Everyone is aware of that.


I think the willingness for young people to see a crash is based on the farcical situation we've gotten ourselves into. We have vast borrowings and interest payable to our creditors. Services like health housing and transport crumble around us. We are trapped by our own debt and it's suffocating us. Young people because they own nothing are less concerned with a paper write down of assets. I believe a debt default of some sort would allow us to start again. Investing in our own services while also bringing asset costs down to facilitate the return to a more normal mode of operation.

It feels like the last rescue package was soft reset (or stay of execution) when a hard reset was required. If Brexit happens and ends up working well, it won't be long until our populist political system is looking to follow suit.

according to one chart you have referenced?

i am a millenial, i dont buy this.

engiweirdo

Keep it going sure lads. Generation greed might find there's nobody left to fund their pensions or keep buying their houses. Plenty of places in Europe alone offering better quality of life, a realistic chance of home ownership and are actively targetting Irish graduates/young professionals.

Pussyhands

I too hope there's a crash but that'll only happen if hundreds of thousands of people leave the country.

OwlsZat

Cyrus wrote: »

according to one chart you have referenced?

i am a millenial, i dont buy this.

There is a link in my post to the business insider article which covers the concept. It's been extensively written about. It's not a new concept nor am I trying to convince you.

Ray Palmer

beauf wrote: »

That might depend where you are. It can take me 40 mins to get a mile at peak from my house. Last week a trip across the city took 2hrs. Thats a journey that was taking abut 45 mins last year. It quicker to walk/cycle than drive across most of the city. My 14k commute is quicker on a bicycle. The gap is just getting bigger.
.

I take it you have never spent time in other cities. Try London during rush hour or any time really and you will see the difference. Most cities it is quicker to cycle than drive.
As for planing I just completely disagree. A Healy Rae just got blocked. St Anne's was blocked and near me there are at least 6 developments blocked. Of what is built it is mostly a reduction from the original proposal.
Loads of people were left with huge side gardens due to planning regulations of the time. To build on them now makes perfect sense.

Wanderer78

engiweirdo wrote:

Keep it going sure lads. Generation greed might find there's nobody left to fund their pensions or keep buying their houses. Plenty of places in Europe alone offering better quality of life, a realistic chance of home ownership and are actively targetting Irish graduates/young professionals.

Each generation plays the hand it's dealt, this is a lot more complex than pure greed.

OwlsZat wrote:

There is a link in my post to the business insider article which covers the concept. It's been extensively written about. It's not a new concept nor am I trying to convince you.

debt jubilees have been spoken about by economist such as Steve keen and Michael hudson for some time now, can't see it happening though, we re no where near accepting this kind of thinking

engiweirdo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

engiweirdo wrote:

Keep it going sure lads. Generation greed might find there's nobody left to fund their pensions or keep buying their houses. Plenty of places in Europe alone offering better quality of life, a realistic chance of home ownership and are actively targetting Irish graduates/young professionals.

Each generation plays the hand it's dealt, this is a lot more complex than pure greed.

OwlsZat wrote:

There is a link in my post to the business insider article which covers the concept. It's been extensively written about. It's not a new concept nor am I trying to convince you.

debt jubilees have been spoken about by economist such as Steve keen and Michael hudson for some time now, can't see it happening though, we re no where near accepting this kind of thinking

Its not that complex. Although to be fair in Ireland its usually a heady blend of greed and stupidity.

Cyrus

OwlsZat wrote: »

There is a link in my post to the business insider article which covers the concept. It's been extensively written about. It's not a new concept nor am I trying to convince you.

its a uk based study that shows there may be a marginal decrease between two generations but that the millenials will over time probably over take the previous generation.

TSQ

ElektroToad wrote: »

It's more frustration. But can you blame him? The world is already slowly burning for a whole generation of people because their lives have been effectively on hold due to the mess we are in!

Don't forgot we have whole generation of workers (now prob late 20s-mid 30s) that first the entered the workforce during the depths of the great recession when we faced very high rates of youth unemployment. And now, just as the majority have finally got stable jobs and made a start on decent careers, they realise have little to no hope of achieving home ownership due to lack of housing and a dysfunctional rental market.

These people aren't getting any younger you know!

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Have you data to back that up? I meet people I used to work along side of and they are exactly where I left them 15 years ago. Their salaries are much lower but they stayed there so in your eyes that is because they had no options. They did have options but they never took them.

Unfortunately I can't find a link to the programme where this research was discussed, but here is analysis of the effect of the last recession on US workers: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2011/11/04/unemployment-and-earnings-losses-a-look-at-long-term-impacts-of-the-great-recession-on-american-workers/

Wanderer78

engiweirdo wrote:

Its not that complex. Although to be fair in Ireland its usually a heady blend of greed and stupidity.

This is far from simple, you ll find most individuals have played little or no part in the causation in our current situation, in my opinion, it has more to do with flawed thinking and dangerous group think.

Cyrus wrote:

its a uk based study that shows there may be a marginal decrease between two generations but that the millenials will over time probably over take the previous generation.

I'm not convinced of this at all, you can see the logic behind it, with rapidly rising asset prices, and relatively low wage inflation, and with added precarious nature of work for many, I suspect we have a problem

Ray Palmer

TSQ wrote: »

Unfortunately I can't find a link to the programme where this research was discussed, but here is analysis of the effect of the last recession on US workers: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2011/11/04/unemployment-and-earnings-losses-a-look-at-long-term-impacts-of-the-great-recession-on-american-workers/

If it not a study in Ireland or even Europe it is completely useless. The US employment laws are very different and their economic of employment are radically different.

In the US it is cheaper to hire a person than have a machine do it. That is why here you leave a car Park you pay a machine here and they have a person. Even street sweepers here have machines while there they hire people with a brush.

The US is not a good example of anything to do with employment in other countries

beauf

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I take it you have never spent time in other cities. Try London during rush hour or any time really and you will see the difference. Most cities it is quicker to cycle than drive.
As for planing I just completely disagree. A Healy Rae just got blocked. St Anne's was blocked and near me there are at least 6 developments blocked. Of what is built it is mostly a reduction from the original proposal.
Loads of people were left with huge side gardens due to planning regulations of the time. To build on them now makes perfect sense.

Oh I agree. Dublin is mirroring London, to an unbelievable degree. Housing being driven by outside investment, and moving it out of reach of many.

As for St Annes I'm not sure if you think that was a good idea or bad. Or just that it was cancelled. Personally I don't think we should be losing amenities for all future generations so that someone else can make a fast buck. I though it was a disgrace. We are losing space for amenities and park land at an alarming rate. You can ignore it to get on the ladder, but is very short sighted thinking.

As for gardens, lots of people don't want gardens. But in general all the new developments have tiny gardens. I think we will regret this in future generations. especially when we are also losing amenity green spaces at the same time.

That said road widening beside a busy route, is very likely to happen. I don't think its the same thing as St Annes. Unless of course the mindset is just to build everywhere without regard of the impact. The it doesn't matter, you build on everything.

beauf

Seems to be we want Dublin to be just like London. Not something I'm interested in.

tigger123

beauf wrote: »

Oh I agree. Dublin is mirroring London, to an unbelievable degree. Housing being driven by outside investment, and moving it out of reach of many.

As for St Annes I'm not sure if you think that was a good idea or bad. Or just that it was cancelled. Personally I don't think we should be losing amenities for all future generations so that someone else can make a fast buck. I though it was a disgrace. We are losing space for amenities and park land at an alarming rate. You can ignore it to get on the ladder, but is very short sighted thinking.

As for gardens, lots of people don't want gardens. But in general all the new developments have tiny gardens. I think we will regret this in future generations. especially when we are also losing amenity green spaces at the same time.

That said road widening beside a busy route, is very likely to happen. I don't think its the same thing as St Annes. Unless of course the mindset is just to build everywhere without regard of the impact. The it doesn't matter, you build on everything.

It's not a case of build nothing or just build everywhere, it's about finding a balance between the two.

Amenities are essential, as is housing. You're presenting it as if it's a binary decision, when it isn't.

Ray Palmer

beauf wrote: »

Oh I agree. Dublin is mirroring London, to an unbelievable degree. Housing being driven by outside investment, and moving it out of reach of many.
.

You just don't get it. We aren't copying or mirroring London. This is what happens to all cities as they grow. It is basic evolution. Nothing will stop it other than stop growing and if that happens the city will just die.

St Anne's was an illustration of how wrong you are about planning. It isn't park land and privately owned. It isn't an public amenity and they can't use that land they have the park beside it that still has over 10 pitches, golf course, BMX track, playground, dog park etc...

Why do you think Ireland should have a higher ownership rate than everywhere else? Thing change and the government will not subsidise cheap housing to increase that figure ever again. Right to buy was great to own but not for social housing stock that shouldn't ever be sold again.

beauf

tigger123 wrote: »

It's not a case of build nothing or just build everywhere, it's about finding a balance between the two.

Amenities are essential, as is housing. You're presenting it as if it's a binary decision, when it isn't.

Oh I agree.

But thats how it being presented. Valid issues of being conflated into NIMBY to all development.

beauf

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You just don't get it. We aren't copying or mirroring London. This is what happens to all cities as they grow. It is basic evolution. Nothing will stop it other than stop growing and if that happens the city will just die.

Actually it isn't. Some cities have converted road space back to parks.
Some place actually enforce a mix of all types of housing in a controlled sustainable return for developers.
It isn't driven by fire fighting. Developers and investors do not dictate policy.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

St Anne's was an illustration of how wrong you are about planning. It isn't park land and privately owned. It isn't an public amenity and they can't use that land they have the park beside it that still has over 10 pitches, golf course, BMX track, playground, dog park etc...

Ah you are saying we have a excess of parks, green space and amenities.
You reckon, we don't need anymore as our populations increases, we have enough.
(Ireland's population growth five times EU average)

Its not the only story recently about pitches being sold for development.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Why do you think Ireland should have a higher ownership rate than everywhere else? Thing change and the government will not subsidise cheap housing to increase that figure ever again. Right to buy was great to own but not for social housing stock that shouldn't ever be sold again.

TBH I don't know why you think Ireland should have a higher ownership rate than everywhere else.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Cyrus wrote: »

according to one chart you have referenced?

i am a millenial, i dont buy this.

It’s a UK chart but regardless, your anecdote doesn’t overrule data. If true.

(It probably isn’t true in Ireland though as we didn’t have the English wage stagnation until recently).

Franz Von Peppercorn

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If it not a study in Ireland or even Europe it is completely useless. The US employment laws are very different and their economic of employment are radically different.

In the US it is cheaper to hire a person than have a machine do it. That is why here you leave a car Park you pay a machine here and they have a person. Even street sweepers here have machines while there they hire people with a brush.

The US is not a good example of anything to do with employment in other countries

I guarantee you that much of Europe is worse than the US. Youth Unemployment in Italy is off the charts.

Franz Von Peppercorn

beauf wrote: »

TBH I don't know why you think Ireland should have a higher ownership rate than everywhere else.

It doesn’t. Why does this meme continue to exist?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-home-ownership-rates.html

Ray Palmer

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It doesn’t. Why does this meme continue to exist?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-home-ownership-rates.html

Ireland did have the highest ownership in the world and that had to change is the point. Homeownership drops as economies become like the rest of the world. This was due to the government literally giving people house out at a fraction of their worth.

beauf

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It doesn’t. Why does this meme continue to exist?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-home-ownership-rates.html

Probably the same reason this one does.

https://goo.gl/images/pJUcj7

beauf

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Ireland did have the highest ownership in the world and that had to change is the point. Homeownership drops as economies become like the rest of the world. This was due to the government literally giving people house out at a fraction of their worth.

So they stopped. Hows that working for you.

Ray Palmer

beauf wrote: »

Actually it isn't. Some cities have converted road space back to parks.
Some place actually enforce a mix of all types of housing in a controlled sustainable return for developers.
It isn't driven by fire fighting. Developers and investors do not dictate policy.



Ah you are saying we have a excess of parks, green space and amenities.
You reckon, we don't need anymore as our populations increases, we have enough.
(Ireland's population growth five times EU average)

Its not the only story recently about pitches being sold for development.




TBH I don't know why you think Ireland should have a higher ownership rate than everywhere else.

I think you are willfully ignorant. You also exaggerate everything. Developers do not dictate policy here otherwise we would have high rise buildings and lower standard of building with less vat. So at best your claim is an exaggeration but given what we know I think it is intentional lying.
Any comment and you twist it away from what is being said.

beauf

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think you are willfully ignorant. You also exaggerate everything. Developers do not dictate policy here otherwise we would have high rise buildings and lower standard of building with less vat. So at best your claim is an exaggeration but given what we know I think it is intentional lying.
Any comment and you twist it away from what is being said.

We have countless scandals of abysmal building standards. Most recently schools. I'm not entirely sure how it could be lower or how its an exaggeration.

Just because they are blocked from high rise does not mean planning and development is not driven by the needs of developers. Nama has done some very odd things in the middle of a housing crisis.

Ray Palmer

beauf wrote: »

We have countless scandals of abysmal building standards. Most recently schools. I'm not entirely sure how it could be lower or how its an exaggeration.

Just because they are blocked from high rise does not mean planning and development is not driven by the needs of developers. Nama has done some very odd things in the middle of a housing crisis.

Willfully ignorant. Planing regulation not followed states the opposite of being allowed do as they please. Nana has nothing to do with planing and is an asset disposal organisation. Just because it is a government agency doesn't mean it has to align with other requirements.

You have heard this all before yet here you are again and choosing to ignore details you know. Willfully ignorant.

beauf

Makes perfect sense. One hand actively working against the other.

We have to sell off housing (in the middle of housing crisis) to rent or buy it back at top end prices.
We can't use the nama housing or land as we might make a loss on it.
Instead we'll make a loss on rent subsidy schemes and hotel accommodation.

At the same the costs of building are so high, and we want to reduce the building standards.
In the middle of endless scandals about building standards not being followed.

Ultimately its about taxes and how much things cost. Why are taxes so high, and why are things so expensive. All of the above.

Ray Palmer

beauf wrote: »

Makes perfect sense. One hand actively working against the other.

The government do not own what Nama has on the books. The same way the government don't control the banks. Legal requirements. You talk of amenities being removed but you want to do away with the laws of this country and our EU membership. Wilfully ignorant because I know you have been told this all before by many people. You choose to ignore information and exaggerate

beauf

The govt don't own the private rental market either. So I guess they've no ability to influence that either. The problems there must be to do whomever owns the property and not anything the govt is going.

selling off local authority housing also made any issues not their problem anymore also.

beauf

castle2012 wrote: »

With supply still very tight. A homeless problem. Rising employment. It sure looks like where set for more large rises. There's not much to suggest otherwise. Any thoughts?

Seems like there's no solution. Its a driverless train.