The irony of ireland`s homelessness crisis

Seth Brundle · 23-01-2017 10:39pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. You may not have individually "partied" but the point is that government spending was out of control, particularly damning that it continued into a period of global crisis that for whatever insane reason, Ireland thought it was immune to.

But you're wrong there! It was actually all Lehmann's fault!

FreudianSlippers · 24-01-2017 10:40am

kbannon wrote: »

But you're wrong there! It was actually all Lehmann's fault!

I genuinely don't disagree with that tbh. But our government reacted to that ****-show with the political equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going LALALALALALA

Katiefe · 24-01-2017 2:04pm

The current homeless crisis cannot be just attributed to the banking crisis or rising rents. One area where the government did not spend money on during the boom was social housing stock. The provision of housing for the less well off was left to the private market through the use of rent supplements. The nature of this market is to make a profit regardless of whether people can afford to pay. Would the money spent subsidising private rentals not have been better put to use by increasing the supply of actual social housing?

Looking to banks and builders to provide cheap rentals to solve the current crisis runs the risks of repeating the same mistakes especially if tenants are not offered long term options or protection.

Surely at this stage the focus should be on avoiding the mistakes of the past if we are to offer young people the chance of living in a more permanent home let alone owning one.

Wanderer78 · 24-01-2017 2:08pm

Katiefe wrote: »

The current homeless crisis cannot be just attributed to the banking crisis or rising rents. One area where the government did not spend money on during the boom was social housing stock. The provision of housing for the less well off was left to the private market through the use of rent supplements. The nature of this market is to make a profit regardless of whether people can afford to pay. Would the money spent subsidising private rentals not have been better put to use by increasing the supply of actual social housing?

Looking to banks and builders to provide cheap rentals to solve the current crisis runs the risks of repeating the same mistakes especially if tenants are not offered long term options or protection.

Surely at this stage the focus should be on avoiding the mistakes of the past if we are to offer young people the chance of living in a more permanent home let alone owning one.

unfortunately, many of our politicians have become blinded by fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoliberalism and free market economics etc, and it looks like we could be waiting a while for them to realise it, if ever.

Katiefe · 25-01-2017 11:36am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

unfortunately, many of our politicians have become blinded by fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoliberalism and free market economics etc, and it looks like we could be waiting a while for them to realise it, if ever.

I'd say a lot of the public have bought into it too otherwise there would not be these politicians

realitykeeper · 30-01-2017 12:13am

Katiefe wrote: »

The current homeless crisis cannot be just attributed to the banking crisis or rising rents. One area where the government did not spend money on during the boom was social housing stock. The provision of housing for the less well off was left to the private market through the use of rent supplements.

Just because someone is less well off does not mean they should not be able to get a house via rent or mortgage. If the manufacturing jobs that were lost to China were still here, the "less well off" would be working in manufacturing and contributing to society instead of depending on inadequate government handouts. If those jobs were still here, they would have higher incomes.

Dimplex is one example, 16 years ago I bought an electric fire which was made in Ireland. Shortly after they moved to China because Ireland was borrowing to fuel a property bubble and house buyers competed to out borrow each other to pay the highest price. Those of us who remained sane are now expected to pay the price of other peoples stupidity while the young who had no part in the borrowing binge are expected to pay sky high rent to the very people the banks are not allowed to summarily foreclose upon. Where is the justice in all this?

pilly · 30-01-2017 10:25am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Just because someone is less well off does not mean they should not be able to get a house via rent or mortgage. If the manufacturing jobs that were lost to China were still here, the "less well off" would be working in manufacturing and contributing to society instead of depending on inadequate government handouts. If those jobs were still here, they would have higher incomes.

Dimplex is one example, 16 years ago I bought an electric fire which was made in Ireland. Shortly after they moved to China because Ireland was borrowing to fuel a property bubble and house buyers competed to out borrow each other to pay the highest price. Those of us who remained sane are now expected to pay the price of other peoples stupidity while the young who had no part in the borrowing binge are expected to pay sky high rent to the very people the banks are not allowed to summarily foreclose upon. Where is the justice in all this?

What on earth has the property bubble got to do with Dimplex closing??

Very all over the place post?

realitykeeper · 30-01-2017 11:52am

pilly wrote: »

What on earth has the property bubble got to do with Dimplex closing??

Very all over the place post?

Well you see, people started working in the building industry and service sector jobs which either supported or were supported by the the building boom. The problem with this is that unlike manufacturing, these industries did not export goods or bring in revenue from abroad. Also, it was fueled by foreign credit which ultimately drains money from the economy.

The building industry probably paid more than manufacturing but again it was all financed by credit which was a kind of Trojan horse.

In short, the economy lost manufacturing jobs which were good to a credit fueled building boom which was bad.

FreudianSlippers · 30-01-2017 12:05pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Just because someone is less well off does not mean they should not be able to get a house via rent or mortgage.

It absolutely should. There is a rule of thumb that rent/mortgage monthly repayments should not be any more than a third of your monthly income.

By definition, our housing issue is intrinsically intertwined with people who had houses they couldn't afford.

If the manufacturing jobs that were lost to China were still here, the "less well off" would be working in manufacturing and contributing to society instead of depending on inadequate government handouts. If those jobs were still here, they would have higher incomes.

I disagree; I don't think we have the ability to compete with China on manufacturing jobs. Maybe Dimplex would have just gone out of business entirely?

realitykeeper · 30-01-2017 1:55pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I disagree; I don't think we have the ability to compete with China on manufacturing jobs. Maybe Dimplex would have just gone out of business entirely?

If Ireland got rid of the minimum wage we could still pay workers a lot more than they get in China but we could also compete with China (which has to transport goods 10,000 miles to get here).

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It absolutely should. There is a rule of thumb that rent/mortgage monthly repayments should not be any more than a third of your monthly income.

Two points on this: a) Ireland`s housing market has been thoroughly interfered with, which is why both house prices and rent are a lot higher than they would be in an un-manipulated market. b) A salary from a basic goods manufacturer would be a lot higher than the dole. Borrowing to pay people the dole while keeping manufacturers out with the high minimum wage is not a good idea.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 1:56pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

if Ireland got rid of the minimum wage we could still pay workers a lot more than they get in China but we could also compete with China (which has to transport goods 10,000 miles to get here).

Two points on this: a) Ireland`s housing market has been thoroughly interfered with, which is why both house prices and rent are a lot higher than they would be in an un-manipulated market. b) A salary from a basic goods manufacturer would be a lot higher than the dole. Borrowing to pay people the dole while keeping manufacturers out with the high minimum wage is not a good idea.

So you want to make poor people poorer but want banks to give them mortgages

marienbad · 30-01-2017 2:28pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

but we could also compete with China (which has to transport goods 10,000 miles to get here).

.

Irish manufacturing cannot compete with China or Vietnam or Indonesia etc even when you factor in freight costs ,tariffs etc.

It is head in the sand stuff to believe otherwise .

eagle eye · 30-01-2017 9:46pm

marienbad wrote: »

Irish manufacturing cannot compete with China or Vietnam or Indonesia etc even when you factor in freight costs ,tariffs etc.

It is head in the sand stuff to believe otherwise .

Yeah we need to end our deals with those countries and do a Trump and put a huge levy on all goods coming from there.

realitykeeper · 30-01-2017 9:49pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you want to make poor people poorer but want banks to give them mortgages

Are the banks giving poor people mortgages now? Of course not, because the house price bubble has been re-blown to facilitate NAMA. House prices would not have stopped falling at 60% below the peak if the government had not stepped in (with borrowed money) and interfered. Had house prices been allowed to fall to the bottom (which might have been by 80%) and the defaulters were evicted and held liable for the balance, young people (and the poor) who did not indulge in property speculation would be free to buy at low cost without competition from the evicted (who would have to rent).

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 9:51pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Are the banks giving poor people mortgages now? Of course not, because the house price bubble has been re-blown to facilitate NAMA. House prices would not have stopped falling at 60% below the peak if the government had not stopped in (with borrowed money) and interfered.

So they shouldn't have stepped in?

House prices should have continued to tumble?

realitykeeper · 30-01-2017 10:04pm

marienbad wrote: »

Irish manufacturing cannot compete with China or Vietnam or Indonesia etc even when you factor in freight costs ,tariffs etc.

It is head in the sand stuff to believe otherwise .

By getting rid of the minimum wage, Ireland can compete with China. Needless to say, politicians and civil servants would need to have their salaries cut by at least 75% before the minimum wage is abolished. The dole would also have to be reduced substantially and prices would also fall.

Mr.Micro · 30-01-2017 10:05pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So they shouldn't have stepped in?

House prices should have continued to tumble?

No, and Yes, house prices should have tumbled until the floor was hit. That's the reality in most normal economies. Now much of the property is owned by foreign vulture funds. We had the Celtic Tiger economy which was not real and now we have this pseudo economy with a mountain of debt behind it.

realitykeeper · 30-01-2017 10:06pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So they shouldn't have stepped in?

House prices should have continued to tumble?

Correct on both counts.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 10:08pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Correct on both counts.

And how do you feel the people whos homes lost 80% of their equity would have felt about that? How many people would have walked away from properties unable to pay their mortgage? You really seem to have a very poor grasp on real world economics.

Mr.Micro · 30-01-2017 10:14pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And how do you feel the people whos homes lost 80% of their equity would have felt about that? How many people would have walked away from properties unable to pay their mortgage? You really seem to have a very poor grasp on real world economics.

Buying a property is a decision with risk. The Government is not there to hold your hand if the market goes bad. Only in the case of our basket case economy it did, at a huge cost for generations to come.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 10:19pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Buying a property is a decision with risk. The Government is not there to hold your hand if the market goes bad. Only in the case of our basket case economy it did, at a huge cost for generations to come.

I agree, How many more properties would have been snapped up by foreign investors if the market had hit absolute rock bottom? How many more people would be homeless now costing the government god knows how much?

chicorytip · 30-01-2017 10:25pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

Are the people in Apollo house not homeless because they have lost their jobs and can't afford rent/mortgages?

No. They are homeless, in the main, because of chaotic lifestyles brought about by serious alcohol or narcotic addiction and untreated psychiatric problems.

Mr.Micro · 30-01-2017 10:26pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree, How many more properties would have been snapped up by foreign investors if the market had hit absolute rock bottom? How many more people would be homeless now costing the government god knows how much?

Even more properties would have been bought by foreign investors as they buy for the long term to rent and own, not to sell in the short term. There might be more homeless people, but now people cannot afford rents as the new owners can charge what they like. So young people will not be able to afford rent or a house as they are so expensive, unless they can get a massive mortgage, that will be too much too handle. Manipulation of the housing market only kicks the can down the road.

realitykeeper · 30-01-2017 10:43pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree, How many more properties would have been snapped up by foreign investors if the market had hit absolute rock bottom? How many more people would be homeless now costing the government god knows how much?

The answer to your first question is far fewer than has turned out to be the case. Big foreign investment firms do not go around buying up individual properties only people do that. Unfortunately, NAMA made it nice and handy for them by selling large tranches of property at a time.

The homeless problem is worse now than it would have been if property prices had been allowed to fall to the bottom. As things stand, the homelessness crisis is just beginning - it will get a lot worse and unless the government reverses everything that has been done to interfere in the housing market over the past decade, there is no hope. The can be no functioning building sector without state support and given that the state itself will run into solvency issues later this year, the problems they have tried to postpone will reappear, larger than ever.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 10:45pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

The answer to your first question is far fewer than has turned out to be the case. Big foreign investment firms do not go around buying up individual properties only people do that. Unfortunately, NAMA made it nice and handy for them by selling large tranches of property at a time.

The homeless problem is worse now than it would have been if property prices had been allowed to fall to the bottom. As things stand, the homelessness crisis is just beginning - it will get a lot worse and unless the government reverses everything that has been done to interfere in the housing market over the past decade, there is no hope. The can be no functioning building sector without state support and given that the state itself will run into solvency issues later this year, the problems they have tried to postpone will reappear, larger than ever.

Here we go again :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers · 31-01-2017 11:07am

I'm not going to bother replying to realitykeeper's posts individually, but let's just say for every single claim that they have made: *source required.

If they could provide a shred of evidence to remotely support 10% of the wild claims that have been made in the past 24 hours, I'd be shocked.

Permabear · 31-01-2017 11:36am

This post has been deleted.

Lux23 · 31-01-2017 5:44pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

There were credit unions, the post office, foreign banks, new banks would have been licenced to fill the void quite quickly.

Bailing out the banks was prone to corporate moral hazard, it was unprincipled and will ultimately cost the country dearly.

Its nearly ten years since the crash and only in the last year have new entrants come unto the market. What foreign bank would have rushed to lend in Ireland during the recession if they aren't doing it now?

realitykeeper · 02-02-2017 12:50pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Its nearly ten years since the crash and only in the last year have new entrants come unto the market. What foreign bank would have rushed to lend in Ireland during the recession if they aren't doing it now?

A recession is the perfect time to invest. The problem is that the government intervened and stopped the recession from happening. I do concede that the next recession will be different in that it would not be a good idea to invest in Ireland or in western economies generally. That is because the next recession will end capitalism in the west. Trumps wall could well end up trapping people in the USA if the US turns Communist.

kippy · 02-02-2017 12:51pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

A recession is the perfect time to invest. The problem is that the government intervened and stopped the recession from happening. I do concede that the next recession will be different in that it would not be a good idea to invest in Ireland or in western economies generally. That is because the next recession will end capitalism in the west. Trumps wall could well end up trapping people in the USA if the US turns Communist.

The end of capitilism. That's a pretty bold statement.
What do you suggest it will be replaced with?

The irony of ireland`s homelessness crisis

Comments