Markitron wrote: » Out of curiosity, what were people saying in 2008/09? I wasn't paying any attention back then but I just assumed that crash wasn't hard to see coming
Dan McLaughlin, chief economist Bank of Ireland: The year 2007 will be another strong one in terms of transactions. We are likely to see something of the order of 85,000 to 90,000 houses built again. we are in for a period of modest house price inflation - something in the order of 3 per cent per annum in 2007 and 2008. John O’Sullivan, residential director Lisney: Growth levels will be single digit. We are predicting 5 per cent for [2007]. Ray Grehan, property developer Glenkerrin Homes: With the average household now 2.2 people, the anticipated increase in the population will lead to a demand for 45,000 units. This, together with the latent demand in the market, would suggest that the total demand for new units will be in the region of 85,000 units for 2007. All from The Irish Times: ireland.com/newspaper/proper … 53659.html
“Comical” Austin Hughes, Chief Economist IIB Bank (speaking on 12th May 2006): I think it is only slightly provocative to suggest that a more pertinent question is to ask why Irish house prices are rising so slowly. We expect house prices will rise by 10 percent on average in both 2006 and 2007.
Cyrus wrote: » BOI are seeking 1400 voluntary redundancies over the coming years but dont lead the truth get in the way of the headline. Linkedin job losses in ireland will be in the low 100s if even that.
Pelezico wrote: » I am a numbers man. Those sales are the total sales on register for July and those house numbers are the houses on myhome.ie this morning not sale agreed Next month we can do it again and see if there is a trend.
Pelezico wrote: » Marius..I reckon we will struggle to hit 2000 in July and this will slow over the next few months.
yosser hughes wrote: » Right up prior to the crash most people, politicians, media shills, estate agents, economists were all in denial about property being overvalued in this country. The phrase soft landing was used a lot, vested interests and that includes anyone that owns a property were either in denial or being just outright dishonest. people actually thought ireland was different, they still do. We had the biggest property bubble going. There are many, many more of the above. Many of these people are still pulling a living out of it all. Brendan O'Connor was another shill who has been rewarded with a hefty salary from RTE. The best though is below:
Billythekid19 wrote: » The bottom line is that it will be extremely difficult for people out of work to find new employment with new hire freezes in a lot of Irish multinationals. The tens of thousands of people who will lose their job in the propped up hospitality sector will seriously struggle to find new employment in the short to medium term. We could be looking at a generation who will either be living with their parents for the rest of their lives or end up renting until they are middle aged.
errlloyd wrote: » I was thinking the same thing. Amazingly, the Indo has an interview with her! Up a hill behind a graveyard. No street lighting. Life ruining. Residential developments should have anchor tenants like shopping centres do or something. My sister lived in a ghost estate in Roscommon till recently, roughly the same amount of houses but about 5 were occupied. It was pretty dreadful.https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/forced-to-live-for-nine-years-in-ghost-estate-38360508.html
Pelezico wrote: » dismissed as voluntary redundancies so somehow they dont count. I reckon that poster does not dig what the OP told him.
beauf wrote: » I think she might have been poorly advised. Putting 180k into a house bought for around 120-200k was madness. You'd never get that back. You'd only do that if you were going to live in for a very long time. I'd also be wary of estate agents estimates. I've known them to be way off the mark.
Cyrus wrote: » they arent dismissed as voluntary redundancies, they are voluntary redundancies, and they would have happened COVID or not. i focus on tightening up your 'statistics' if i were you.
Hulk Hands wrote: » While BOI have had ongoing voluntary redundancy for a while, the recent announcement has come as a surprise to a few in there tbf. They've increased the terms of redundancy upwards by a week per year of service, which is significant, while also increasing the upper limit. It does spell a good bit more urgency. Those losses in the pension fund investment came as a big hit i'd imagine
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Agreed nearly the cost of the home itself. I think this was supposed to be their long term home but they split up recently and the husband wants to sell so looks like they'll take a hefty hit.
Pelezico wrote: » Ok...so they were going to happen anyway so they dont count.. RTE was the biggest shill in the last boom. As job losses were announced, RTE were careful to say that some or most of the jobs were contractor jobs. I suppose they did not consider them real jobs. Except..get this ..contractors are usually paid more than the permies so they really did count.
JimmyVik wrote: » What terms are they getting? I know I was in a company before where people got 6 weeks per year worked for voluntary. Some of them had been there over 10 years. They were only too happy to take it. If I got 6 weeks per year id jump at it.
awec wrote: » It's a fairly important distinction to make. Contract workers are only ever supposed to be temporary (that's the whole point) and will always be the first out the door when costs need cut. They get paid more because they carry the risk of having no contract and therefore no income. Higher risk, higher reward.
awec wrote: » Do you think they'll get the 1400? The fact they're going with a voluntary stage suggests that they believe there's enough staff ready and willing to jump.
Hulk Hands wrote: » I'd have to ask but id imagine so, and thats with it not being open to everyone (younger well regarded types might/will have it refused). Plenty of grey in there. Yeah, 4 weeks + the 2 statutory and a new upper limit of 2.5x salary.
Pelezico wrote: » The economy does not care about the distinction. If 1400 lose their jobs in BOI, that represents 1400 less paying tax, contractor or not. But in RTE speak, it matters.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Who could forget September 2008 Brendan Burgess on RTE -"Irish banks are very well regulated,they dont have direct exposure in terms of loans to these American sub-prime customers"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2q7bBVAo74
awec wrote: » It matters to everyone, because "Company X ends contract of 1400 contractors" is a very different situation to "Company X cuts 1400 permanent jobs". Contractors knowingly take the risk of having no income at any stage. That's why they get paid a premium, they are supposed to be able to cover themselves when they are not currently in contract. Contractor roles can just disappear even in the good times, it's the very nature of the work. Neither are good news, but there is a big difference between the two scenarios.
Donald Trump wrote: » Actually, technically that (subprime) point was correct, even though he was wrong on virtually everything else. (including the regulation part) The US crisis was predicated on the back of structured products which repackaged loans that were known to be junk individually. Those were not a feature of the Irish crisis, although you could perhaps argue that similar valuation mistakes were done on loan books in the Irish banks by regulators and the banks themselves
Pelezico wrote: » Brendan did not allow any discussion about house prices on his forum. He must have had a shed load of property.
