Affordability of Property and Irish Wages/Salaries

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

You have good taste in shoes anyway

Lol...... Barkers Grant..... best yokes I've ever bought
Airmax have their place in a gents wardrobe too :pac:

Cyrus

Augeo wrote: »

Lol...... Barkers Grant..... best yokes I've ever bought
Airmax have their place in a gents wardrobe too :pac:

I won’t disagree

Fol20

jive wrote: »

It’s a pity there were no incentives / less penal rules around other types of investments e.g. equities.

Part of the problem is that Irish people are extremely keen to own property as there are no other investments that are really worth it in the current system. So any people in 20s/30s earning good money will be building up their cash reserve and will eventually get to a tipping point where they need to invest it into something and the only answer to ‘what’ at the moment is property.

I saw RSUs mentioned on this thread, there’s very few people that these are worth a lot of money to because they are taxed to the hilt...especially at the level people are going into companies in during their 20s. I’m sure there’s some right place at the right time folks but certainly not enough to contribute in any great way to the problem we clearly have.

Completely agree with this. Level of taxation on other investments makes it not worth it to invest in. Likewise level of complexity depending on types of investment and location of investment also make it a deterant.

Elessar

Great thread, a fascinating read. Lots of good points raised.

Dublin is not a place you want to live on a low salary. The same can be said for most major capital cities. I think it's wrong to assume that people earning at or slightly above minimum wage should ever be able to buy property smack bang in the middle of a capital city. It's the same in many countries. Most people on average or below average salaries will buy outside and commute in.

But that's where the similarities stop. As another poster a while back quite rightly pointed out, transport infrastructure in Dublin is awful compared to literally anywhere else. We should have at least 2-3 high speed metro lines linking north/south/east/west with underground and overground lines linking the suburbs with the city center. Our over-reliance on buses and the Irish love of the car mean that the city is choked with traffic and the M50 is already beyond expected capacity. Who can blame would-be home owners for not wanting to buy further out? They will be stuck commuting for 60-90+ minutes each way into the jobs hub of the city day in day out.

Take Hannover for example. A lovely northern German city that I am intimately familiar with (herself is from there) with a population half the size of Dublin. It has 4 separate metro networks with 12 main lines - with both S-Bahn and U-Bahn sections that criss-cross each part of the city. Trains are every few minutes (almost 24 hours a day) and you're in the city center in no time.

This is why the Metro Link is so crucial. It will open up swathes of land around it for housing where people have the option of getting into Dublin city (relatively) quickly. Housing that people on average salaries could afford. And it's a start for proper rapid transit in Dublin - no doubt other lines will be added over time for other areas of the city. But like anything of substance here, it will face an uphill struggle to get built. Planning delays and populist claptrap could de-rail the whole thing. Mary from number 10 down the road will be inconvenienced so lets get behind her and put a stop to this! It's infuriating.

Fol20

Elessar wrote: »

Great thread, a fascinating read. Lots of good points raised.

Dublin is not a place you want to live on a low salary. The same can be said for most major capital cities. I think it's wrong to assume that people earning at or slightly above minimum wage should ever be able to buy property smack bang in the middle of a capital city. It's the same in many countries. Most people on average or below average salaries will buy outside and commute in.

But that's where the similarities stop. As another poster a while back quite rightly pointed out, transport infrastructure in Dublin is awful compared to literally anywhere else. We should have at least 2-3 high speed metro lines linking north/south/east/west with underground and overground lines linking the suburbs with the city center. Our over-reliance on buses and the Irish love of the car mean that the city is choked with traffic and the M50 is already beyond expected capacity. Who can blame would-be home owners for not wanting to buy further out? They will be stuck commuting for 60-90+ minutes each way into the jobs hub of the city day in day out.

Take Hannover for example. A lovely northern German city that I am intimately familiar with (herself is from there) with a population half the size of Dublin. It has 4 separate metro networks with 12 main lines - with both S-Bahn and U-Bahn sections that criss-cross each part of the city. Trains are every few minutes (almost 24 hours a day) and you're in the city center in no time.

This is why the Metro Link is so crucial. It will open up swathes of land around it for housing where people have the option of getting into Dublin city (relatively) quickly. Housing that people on average salaries could afford. And it's a start for proper rapid transit in Dublin - no doubt other lines will be added over time for other areas of the city. But like anything of substance here, it will face an uphill struggle to get built. Planning delays and populist claptrap could de-rail the whole thing. Mary from number 10 down the road will be inconvenienced so lets get behind her and put a stop to this! It's infuriating.

That and vertical building would make accommodation much more affordable. It’s wishful thinking but this would create a much better infrastructure for dublin

cave_troll

wersal gummage wrote: »

I don't think Raheny was ever a rough area? Not in the 30 years or so I've known it.

Kilbarick isn't exactly gentrified either is it? It's just not completely unsafe anymore

raheny hasnt been remotely rough in more than forty years , its thoroughly middle class .

cave_troll

Augeo wrote: »

In Ireland there aren't many no go areas in that category....tiny parts of the city centre when the natives are doing burnouts in stolen cars..... parts of jobstown maybe..... tiny bits of Limerick. Traveller strongholds are mainly grand to pass through too if you don't mind kids shouting at you. I don't think there's anywhere in cork city that's no go for anyone.

I think our quite generous social welfare system is to thank for that...... social welfare does benefit us, at great cost of course.

However there are plenty places where "outsiders" shouldn't buy a house unless you don't mind being burgled regularly when you go to work.

I wandered into some spot near Guinness brewery in chinos & barker brogues one morning & was absolutely ****ting it...... was well weird.... lads in their 30s in groups on the footpaths with pit bull terriers on chain leashes.
But if I was in airmax & a tracksuit I'd have felt grand ish.

for a city of its size , limerick has a remarkable number of rough areas .

i say that as a fan of limerick .

Lia_lia

Myself and my partner are on a combined salary of just under 90k. We are in our late 20's. Both work in the tech industry in separate multinationals. Not in Dublin. We both have RSUs but nothing near the amount being quoted here... No interest in buying a house at the moment but luckily could afford to if needed.

Saying that we are the minority amongst our group of friends. Most people we know are earning in our around 30k and can't see themselves ever affording a mortgage.

Interested Observer

This thread has been eye-opening. I don't really know what I expected but thought the average income over mortgage applications for FTBs would be greater than the €73k figure given, 3.5x that is 255k which unfortunately isn't going to go very far in Dublin. Apparently income is €85k in Dublin which is still below 2x the average national full time wage. I guess I come from a bubble where my close friends are all in professional services of some sort, their partners are too, etc.

Another thing about the tech companies is that very large proportions of their staff are foreign and I'm guessing wouldn't be overly interested in buying in Dublin. I don't know the numbers now but I remember reading a few years back that 70% of Google's staff in Dublin weren't Irish.

Klonker

Lia_lia wrote: »

Myself and my partner are on a combined salary of just under 90k. We are in our late 20's. Both work in the tech industry in separate multinationals. Not in Dublin. We both have RSUs but nothing near the amount being quoted here... No interest in buying a house at the moment but luckily could afford to if needed.

Saying that we are the minority amongst our group of friends. Most people we know are earning in our around 30k and can't see themselves ever affording a mortgage.

Do you mind me asking what region you and your friends are living since you mentioned its not Dublin? I'm asking because your friends say they'll never afford mortgages and are on about 30k each. Thats 30k*2*3.5=210k. Add 10% deposit of say 20k and you're talking 230k. If its new build you can add on FTB rebate of 10k, that's 240k. I'd be interested to hear where people can't get a home for 230k-240k outside Dublin.

Lia_lia

Klonker wrote: »

Do you mind me asking what region you and your friends are living since you mentioned its not Dublin? I'm asking because your friends say they'll never afford mortgages and are on about 30k each. Thats 30k*2*3.5=210k. Add 10% deposit of say 20k and you're talking 230k. If its new build you can add on FTB rebate of 10k, that's 240k. I'd be interested to hear where people can't get a home for 230k-240k outside Dublin.

Cork city! Prices are quite high here. And the majority of my close friends are single. So wasn’t really referring to couples.

Klonker

Lia_lia wrote: »

Cork city! Prices are quite high here. And the majority of my close friends are single. So wasn’t really referring to couples.

Cork city makes sense, its our second largest so is always going to be expensive. Also always going to be hard for a single person. The world has changed from when most households were one income to now when most are two. This has had an effect on house prices. Also most of your friends you say are single now, statistically speaking most will be long term relationships by their mid thirties so doubling their purchasing power. As for friends that are still single, from their late twenties to mid thirties you expect their salaries to grow more than the norm bringing them into range to buy 1-2 bed apartments around the city. If they are single they only need 1 bed apartment.

My point here is that apart from Dublin and our other cities to a lesser extent, I think prices at the moment are fair. In most parts of Ireland you will get a 3 bed house with garden for 200k, which is well attainable for a couple earning below average wages. For all other cities apart from Dublin and a little higher wage than this the 3 bed house with garden should be achievable there too.

Our problem is Dublin. I believe if our transport infrastructure was improved to be quicker, more frequent, more linked up and more reliable it would open up further parts of the country to be more commutable. This would take housing pressure off the housing demand in Dublin, hopefully helping to lower prices with more potential for housing supply. Add broadband being rolled out all over the country and this would make these new commutable towns even more attractive as more companies here are offering remote working 1-2 days a week.

Ray Palmer

cave_troll wrote: »

raheny hasnt been remotely rough in more than forty years , its thoroughly middle class .

Edenmore is still in Raheny and is still rough.

tom1ie

Klonker wrote: »

Cork city makes sense, its our second largest so is always going to be expensive. Also always going to be hard for a single person. The world has changed from when most households were one income to now when most are two. This has had an effect on house prices. Also most of your friends you say are single now, statistically speaking most will be long term relationships by their mid thirties so doubling their purchasing power. As for friends that are still single, from their late twenties to mid thirties you expect their salaries to grow more than the norm bringing them into range to buy 1-2 bed apartments around the city. If they are single they only need 1 bed apartment.

My point here is that apart from Dublin and our other cities to a lesser extent, I think prices at the moment are fair. In most parts of Ireland you will get a 3 bed house with garden for 200k, which is well attainable for a couple earning below average wages. For all other cities apart from Dublin and a little higher wage than this the 3 bed house with garden should be achievable there too.

Our problem is Dublin. I believe if our transport infrastructure was improved to be quicker, more frequent, more linked up and more reliable it would open up further parts of the country to be more commutable. This would take housing pressure off the housing demand in Dublin, hopefully helping to lower prices with more potential for housing supply. Add broadband being rolled out all over the country and this would make these new commutable towns even more attractive as more companies here are offering remote working 1-2 days a week.

What about the commuter towns in Kildare, Wicklow etc. you’d be hard pressed to find 3 bed houses for 200k or less. In fact a quick look on daft for Naas shows no 3 beds are 200k, with 10 being 225-300k.
In Wicklow, bray, 3 houses from 280k to 300k etc etc.
most people want to live in a commutable distance of Dublin, however house prices in commutable distances are too expensive.

Cyrus

tom1ie wrote: »

What about the commuter towns in Kildare, Wicklow etc. you’d be hard pressed to find 3 bed houses for 200k or less. In fact a quick look on daft for Naas shows no 3 beds are 200k, with 10 being 225-300k.
In Wicklow, bray, 3 houses from 280k to 300k etc etc.
most people want to live in a commutable distance of Dublin, however house prices in commutable distances are too expensive.

if most people want to live in a commutable distance to dublin it stands to reason those houses will be more expensive, its not credible to expect to get a 3 bedroom house on the dart line for around 200k

Klonker

tom1ie wrote: »

Klonker wrote: »

Cork city makes sense, its our second largest so is always going to be expensive. Also always going to be hard for a single person. The world has changed from when most households were one income to now when most are two. This has had an effect on house prices. Also most of your friends you say are single now, statistically speaking most will be long term relationships by their mid thirties so doubling their purchasing power. As for friends that are still single, from their late twenties to mid thirties you expect their salaries to grow more than the norm bringing them into range to buy 1-2 bed apartments around the city. If they are single they only need 1 bed apartment.

My point here is that apart from Dublin and our other cities to a lesser extent, I think prices at the moment are fair. In most parts of Ireland you will get a 3 bed house with garden for 200k, which is well attainable for a couple earning below average wages. For all other cities apart from Dublin and a little higher wage than this the 3 bed house with garden should be achievable there too.

Our problem is Dublin. I believe if our transport infrastructure was improved to be quicker, more frequent, more linked up and more reliable it would open up further parts of the country to be more commutable. This would take housing pressure off the housing demand in Dublin, hopefully helping to lower prices with more potential for housing supply. Add broadband being rolled out all over the country and this would make these new commutable towns even more attractive as more companies here are offering remote working 1-2 days a week.

What about the commuter towns in Kildare, Wicklow etc. you’d be hard pressed to find 3 bed houses for 200k or less. In fact a quick look on daft for Naas shows no 3 beds are 200k, with 10 being 225-300k.
In Wicklow, bray, 3 houses from 280k to 300k etc etc.
most people want to live in a commutable distance of Dublin, however house prices in commutable distances are too expensive.

You are correct and I agree. My point was that these areas have higher prices because they are commutable to Dublin. So Dublin is the the problem there too as that's what's driving up the prices. If more of the country was actually commutable to Dublin City than is currently in would actually help alleviate demand pressure on these towns. In theory anyway!

tom1ie

Klonker wrote: »

You are correct and I agree. My point was that these areas have higher prices because they are commutable to Dublin. So Dublin is the the problem there too as that's what's driving up the prices. If more of the country was actually commutable to Dublin City than is currently in would actually help alleviate demand pressure on these towns. In theory anyway!

Or it would just push those house prices up too.

myshirt

Have we considered what role has the feminist movement played in this?

If you compare the 80's to now, it is no longer acceptable to exclude people from economic opportunity based on gender, and rightly so. However, was it worth it? Have we done it wrong? Did we neglect Ireland's silent economic partner, the homemaker. The idea of course was that family incomes would go up, and women wouldn't be chained to a man. If you look at the numbers though, the impact of this has been the economy and corporate profits have grown, but what is a 'family wage' has now morphed from a man working to two people working. No net gains for the family. Need two people working to get that house. Increased risk. Increasingly precarious. No?

GingerLily

myshirt wrote: »

Have we considered what role has the feminist movement played in this?

If you compare the 80's to now, it is no longer acceptable to exclude people from economic opportunity based on gender, and rightly so. However, was it worth it? Have we done it wrong? Did we neglect Ireland's silent economic partner, the homemaker. The idea of course was that family incomes would go up, and women wouldn't be chained to a man. If you look at the numbers though, the impact of this has been the economy and corporate profits have grown, but what is a 'family wage' has now morphed from a man working to two people working. No net gains for the family. Need two people working to get that house. Increased risk. Increasingly precarious. No?

Seriously? Blame the feminists?

Should have kept the single mothers in laundries too I suppose like we used to, more housing for decent folk.

Cyrus

GingerLily wrote: »

Seriously? Blame the feminists?

Should have kept the single mothers in laundries too I suppose like we used to, more housing for decent folk.

no need for hyperbole, its pretty apparent though that the change in society hasnt really dont much for families, now requiring two full time working parents to make ends meet rather than one.

Better for single women for sure, and better for society as a whole, but unintended consequences for families (and the singletons that cant buy solo)

GingerLily

Cyrus wrote: »

no need for hyperbole, its pretty apparent though that the change in society hasnt really dont much for families, now requiring two full time working parents to make ends meet rather than one.

Better for single women for sure, and better for society as a whole, but unintended consequences for families (and the singletons that cant buy solo)

If be interested to know who is actually worse off to be honest, is it just the married middle class?

The hyberbole was brought in by the previous poster blaming the feminists - ridiculous!

Cyrus

GingerLily wrote: »

If be interested to know who is actually worse off to be honest, is it just the married middle class?

The hyberbole was brought in by the previous poster blaming the feminists - ridiculous!

well in terms of property purchasing:

singletons cant afford to buy alone, presume they are worse off as one income could buy a home in days gone by
Couples are worse off as they need two incomes to buy
Families are worse off because of the above and they have childcare costs, and guilt of leaving their kids in full time care

tom1ie

GingerLily wrote: »

If be interested to know who is actually worse off to be honest, is it just the married middle class?

The hyberbole was brought in by the previous poster blaming the feminists - ridiculous!

is this a tongue in cheek question? The majority of working people in Ireland are up to their eyeballs in debt, so I would say that qualifies as being worse off. An extract from the world economic forum:

One way to think about government debt is in per capita terms. So, for example, if the Japanese wanted to pay off their national debt, they would owe $90,345 each.
Among OECD countries, Ireland, the US and Italy are next, with $62,687, $61,539, and $58,693 respectively.
Belgium, at $58,134, is above the OECD average of $50,245.

LuckyLloyd

GingerLily wrote: »

Seriously? Blame the feminists?

Should have kept the single mothers in laundries too I suppose like we used to, more housing for decent folk.

He framed his point somewhat controversially, but it's a valid point nonetheless. Getting women into the workplace on a full time basis and tearing down discriminatory barriers was brilliant for creating economic growth on a macro level and upping the competitiveness of the work force. That has increased median family incomes however, and that makes fundamental necessities more expensive and also more difficult to balance and sustain. Every action has a reaction, most benefits come with some downside. It is possible to conclude that it was overwhelmingly the right thing to do despite a complication for prospective home owners.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Bob24

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He framed his point somewhat controversially, but it's a valid point nonetheless. Getting women into the workplace on a full time basis and tearing down discriminatory barriers was brilliant for creating economic growth on a macro level and upping the competitiveness of the work force. That has increased median family incomes however, and that makes fundamental necessities more expensive and also more difficult to balance and sustain. Every action has a reaction, most benefits come with some downside. It is possible to conclude that it was overwhelmingly the right thing to do despite a complication for prospective home owners.

Never read it but I believe Christopher Lasch did a bit of writing about women entering the workforce in the US and how it was the result of an alliance of social liberals and economic liberals.

Point being that it was fully backed and promoted by the most hardcore capitalists as it was a way to grow the overall economy while applying downwards pressure on wages and creating new consumer needs to cover for what women didn’t have time to do anymore. All positive aspects as far as a mercantilist is concerned. And yes of course in terms of property, since wealth is relative and everyone is competing with each other for a limited supply of properties - when all households become dual income rather than single income, and the end of the day no one is better off.

Now of course that’s not to say gaining the option for women to have financial independence wasn’t a good thing. But saying this should not lead anyone to ignore the side effects (and another side effect actually is that the option to be a stay home parent if someone wants to do be one has now became unavailable for many households due to the financial pressure of have to compete with dual income households).

So it’s a complex question and diving further into is is probably going off topic :-)

Geuze

tom1ie wrote: »

is this a tongue in cheek question? The majority of working people in Ireland are up to their eyeballs in debt, so I would say that qualifies as being worse off.

Do you mean public debt per worker?

Or household debts per worker?

Interested Observer

tom1ie wrote: »

is this a tongue in cheek question? The majority of working people in Ireland are up to their eyeballs in debt, so I would say that qualifies as being worse off. An extract from the world economic forum:

One way to think about government debt is in per capita terms. So, for example, if the Japanese wanted to pay off their national debt, they would owe $90,345 each.
Among OECD countries, Ireland, the US and Italy are next, with $62,687, $61,539, and $58,693 respectively.
Belgium, at $58,134, is above the OECD average of $50,245.

Is this a tongue in cheek post? Because you're quoting figures on govt debt not household debt.


Are we honestly trying to say here that Ireland is now worse off economically than, say, the 80s or earlier? Because that's patent bollocks.

Saints#33

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yet 80% of the countries wealth is in the bank accounts of people over 60 years of age. (I got that stat direct from the head of a bank at a business summit a few years back).

Everyone else, up to their eyes in debt. So you're both kinda right.

Interested Observer

Saints#33 wrote: »

Yet 80% of the countries wealth is in the bank accounts of people over 60 years of age. (I got that stat direct from the head of a bank at a business summit a few years back).

Everyone else, up to their eyes in debt. So you're both kinda right.

Does this include mortgage debt? I don't think there's anything alarming about anyone under a certain age with a mortgage being in net debt.