Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

There's a reason why this generation is "worse off" than their parents

Options
123468

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,898 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    This all started not with people buying more than one house. But by privatisation of social and affordable housing while selling off public housing without replacing it.

    It's that demand that's drowning the private supply. It's slowly creeping up the chain.

    It's not the only issue. It's a multi faceted complex problem.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,162 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    No I don’t, I retired at 55 and like most Swiss citizens I believe it a dumb idea, but then I have lived in a country with that mentality for over three decades.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,162 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    Like I said a lot more pain to come before people are willing to consider more realistic solutions than everyone must own a house.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,162 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    People where I live are told to get an education or learn a trade, work hard, save money put money a side for retirement, never spent more than 20% of your salary on accommodation, never invest in property, built up a well balanced portfolio and all will be well.

    In fact over here home ownership is discouraging in favor of investing. We pay no taxes on gains from investing in the financial markets, but are taxed on the imputed rent from property ownership. So if I make an annualized return of 3% of a property I pay taxes, if my annualized return on equities is the typical 6% - 8%, I pay no taxes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,898 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    That's great and I think it's a smart policy.

    But the vast majority of people who invest in property in Ireland only have one extra property. Occasionally two. They aren't hoovering up supply, in fact they are leaving the market.

    It's the lack of public & social housing distorting the market. It's consuming the private rental supply.

    Govt policies are constricting supply in variety of ways, their policies are also increasing demand and at the same time consuming any supply there is.

    This isn't a problem caused by any generation. It's govt policy driving this dysfunction.

    We have another knee jerk policy in giving the tenant first offer. How does that help supply? It's another meaningless policy that won't help supply.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,898 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Other options like what? You can't rent. What other option.

    If you can't rent, the only choice is to buy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Jack Daw



    What has that got to do with the point I raised.

    Home ownership is what people want in Ireland, it provides security for retirement as it means they can't be potentially evicted, government would be better off to accept that do what the people want and always have an excess supply of houses available, it's not overly difficult ti implement such a policy they just don't want to do it.

    Problem is the age profile of people in the Dáil are the people who saw property as an investment rather than just a place to live and as a result don't want to undermine their own investment for the sake of having a properly run country for younger people.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,281 ✭✭✭✭Geuze




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,281 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Given obsolecence, population growth, household formation, new houses are required.

    Who builds them?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,281 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Given the Irish tax system, and Irish society, home ownership may be more rational here than in Switz.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,898 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Any one over voting age voted these govts in. "This" generation is a responsible as anyone else.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    No alternative really,none of the major parties want to fix the issue.



  • Registered Users Posts: 752 ✭✭✭dontmindme


    You certainly are...you and a lot of others that just like the sound of their own arguments crapping on about wages, apprenticeships, social welfare payments(??) and everything else that is irrelevant to how this generation is 'worse-off' than their parents - there's almost full employment ffs.


    HOUSING IS THE ISSUE!


    The young people, whether they study hard and save hard, and get up early in the morning, are finding that they are still living with Mammy and Daddy as they now enter their thirties, with not enough houses being built the last ten fking years and with 60% of private over-priced rental stock being subsidised (inflated) by the tax-payer, while the government introduce measure after measure to make the problem worse and to drum up even further demand for the ever-dwindling resource that is affordable housing - either renting or purchasing, in this great country. It's an utter clusterfking disaster, and for many of them, they won't be voting this shower in next time round.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    Nope I'm not wrong. I specifically did not go into the housing crisis and I'm I'm certainly not going to listen to soap boxers like you. I heard an enough of their guff and lies outside the dail on Saturday.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    That always puzzles me when people say we should all be renters for life like some more 'advanced' EU neighbours. Renters pay someone. Are all those dwellings in the likes of switzerland, austria etc built by those governments or by private investors or organisations with shareholders?

    Maybe they are owned by pension funds or other investment vehicles used by the very rich to increase their huge personal wealth even more at the expense of normal working people. Enormous property wealth concentrated in the hands of a few at the top doesnt sound like a better option to me.



  • Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's the first time in God knows how long where the previous generation has it better than the new one, and already owns all of the capital and property. And it's happening everywhere.

    Goldman Sachs reckons 300 millions jobs will be "disrupted" by AI in the coming years so the situation is about to get worse. Each of my parents live in large four-bedroom homes by themselves and enjoy multiple pensions. When I visit, it's like visiting an entirely different world that most of our generation will never experience.

    I've had my half of a deposit sitting for years and years, but I'd have to meet someone who had also done the same, wanted to get married, and settle down and buy a home. In that time, the power of that money has collapsed so I have to keep paying rent, and keep increasing my savings, and then buy a more expensive house.

    My Dad did not have to find a woman who had also spent years saving for a mortgage. They just got on with it and built a house and started a family. Yes, life was way harder and sacrifices were made, but at least those sacrifices could actually be made. The majority of people simply cannot make enough sacrifices to save for a deposit by themselves. What are they meant to do? Sacrifice having a roof over their heads in order to save up?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    If you study, save hard and are still living with your parents in your thirties, you should have a very large deposit saved. Some people will be able to buy but the idea of not saving and then just trying to save hard for a a couple of years is over in my opinion. Between me and the wife we had 200k saved as a deposit when we bought, saved over about 9 years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,306 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Won’t somebody help me find a spouse, so that I can buy a house. Please.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭francois


    This thread has turned into a comedy sketch


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1by0-nkKOTs



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,403 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,115 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    Spent 3 years in college & another 4 getting a professional qualification.

    Have changed my car 3 times in 15 years. Never had PCP

    Past 5 years I've only done one week long holiday a year & maybe 2 city breaks

    My phone is never the latest model, my tablet was won in a competition so the only tech I've bought in a few years is a fitbit.

    Travel the world - I've been a lot of places but mainly on a budget. Only blowout was 15 years ago

    Never been to Australia (but those I know who went came back in a better position than some of us who stayed)

    Nope not an influencer.

    All that said, it takes 2 of us to afford a house not much bigger than the one I grew up in which was paid for from a primary school principal's salary (my mam was a sahm). So yeah I do think overall this generation is worse off. Realistically for most people you need 2 salaries to afford a home & then with both working, if you have kids, you have to afford childcare out of that too. I know a few primary school teachers who would struggle to get a mortgage for an apartment with just their salary where my dad was able to buy a 4 bed house.

    Yes I've managed to buy a house but honestly we were lucky to a degree as we got in while prices were rising but hadn't quite got to the level they have now. For example, a house in my estate went for €200k more than what we paid 4 years ago. That is crazy. And ours was about €70k higher than the previous set that were sold. The goalposts are continuously changing as to how much you need to get a house because prices are rising so much so even with a lot of saving, people just aren't reaching it as just when they think they've gotten there, the prices are up & they're shy on the deposit or they don't earn enough to satisfy the 3.5 times salary max rule. Plus if you have kids during the time you're saving, you're stuffed as that removes more from the banks idea of "what you can afford". And sometimes those calculations are stupid. I have friends (same qualification as me so good paying jobs) who were renting, saving to buy, and had a child. Even though the mortgage would have been €200 less a month than their rent (& they were paying childcare too), they were refused the mortgage as the bank didn't think they could afford it. They weren't left with nothing at the end of the month after paying their bills either. It's nuts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    You can't really compare primary school teachers financially today to those in the 80's realistically. In the 80's there were few jobs and a lot emigration. Now there are much more highly skilled jobs and very little emigration. The relative financial position of a teacher has changed enormously, mainly due to improvement in the rest of the economy. When there were few stable jobs a solid state job was highly regarded.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,115 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    My dad bought our house in late 89 so tail end of the 80's. My point is that comparatively, we were able to be a 1 income household & have a nice house compared to most people these days who need 2 incomes to afford anything similar.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    Yes and I think you are missing the point about the high unemployment rate. While the "haves" now are regarded as those who own their own property, in the 1980s it was those who had stable jobs. It was possible to afford it on one salary for those who were in the privileged position of having a stable job.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭notAMember


    Man "supporting" the wife, give me a break, it was the other way around.

    You want women's marriage ban back? Where women were not legally permitted to work for wages once they were married? Completely at the mercy of some idiot drunk who held the purse strings, giving her a good beating when she complained about the marital rape, while it was illegal for her to get a paid job? I'm going to vote a Hard F-ing No on that one.

    Make no mistake, that workforce discrimination is what allowed a man to build his own home and have his wife provide domestic slave labour to supporting his lifestyle. When you ban a huge proportion of the population from earning any income, your buck goes a lot further. My parents were forced to follow this outrageous model in the 70's, my mam was soundly chucked out of her job when she married, and when he was in an industrial accident a few years later and couldn't work, we were up **** creek.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,115 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    And I think you're missing the other points I made about how friends of mine with similar jobs/salaries to me can't afford to buy because of how things are being calculated at the banks.

    I also think you're missing that despite the "stable" job thing for the 80's inflation was higher than it is now & interest rates were definitively higher which meant that mortgages, as a percentage of income at the time, were quite high. In fact I know that the mortgage, when my dad took it out, equated to over 50% of his take home pay. And the calculations at the time for the bank (amount times salary) were similar to what they are now. A stable job, yes but not exactly earning loads. My point is around the fact that people who had jobs in the late 80's/early 90's (fyi unemployment rate had started to fall by 1986 & was down to circa 13% in 1990 so 6 months after my dad bought that house) were able to afford a home whereas these days you have to be earning pretty high to be even considered so yes on that front, we have it worse than the generation before.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    Well, most people in the 80s would agree that it was possible, with sacrifice, to buy a property on one stable salary. The problem was having a single stable salary. Huge number emigrated because they couldn't find a job. There was also huge unemployment. You can't buy a property when you are unemployed! I would imagine these people would regard themselves as worse off than people unable to buy a home today.

    The bank rules are there to protect everyone. We had a free for all in 00's and it ended very badly. Even now, 2 x 45k salaries, if they get an exemption to get 4.5, would be able to borrow €405k, which is far too much in my opinion to be borrowing on salaries like that. We certainly don't need to be making it possible to borrow even more.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,222 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    And...I dont beleive you... my point holds true.

    If I go digging, ill find holes in your personal story.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,267 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    You might not have to dig too long. It's not really fair though to be picking holes in peoples personal stories. Well you might make allowances if they are projecting something misleading though



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mock if you like but when women entered the workplace, society didn't change so that families had twice the spending power. Prices just went up in comparison to a person's wages.

    The societal change it brought is that the housing market requires two full-time workers. You have to be doing extremely well for yourself to buy a house in Ireland in 2023 without a partner who has saved for a deposit as well.



Advertisement