schmittel wrote: » Eh? Run that past me again? 69.6% of the population are living in underoccupied properties and you have proven that the majority are in rural areas? 3.4m people in Ireland live in underoccupied properties.. 1.5m people in Ireland live in rural areas. (31.34%) If approx 7/10 people in Ireland live in an underoccupied property and approx 3/10 people in Ireland live in a rural area, how on earth can the majority of people living in underoccupied houses also live in a rural area?!
Timing belt wrote: » Apartments have a bad name in Ireland for a variety of reasons... but if Space is valuable and we are to stop the urban spread then we need to embrace them in Urban locations. I have never understood why high rise is such a no-go area in Dublin but are ok in every other city around the world.
PropQueries wrote: » I’m not a statistics expert, but would using the median calculation be more relevant than calculating the average in ireland given the large houses in Ireland which skew the relevance of using averages compared to many other EU countries. For example if there’s 10 three-bed houses in an estate and 9 are occupied by one person each who’s over 75 and the last one is rented out to ten persons by a slum landlord, the average is c. 2 occupants per household but that’s of no relevance in making policy decisions as 9 of the 10 houses would definitely be under-occupied.
Villa05 wrote: » The experts got it so right last time He made reference to the scheme in England and how well it worked, however a review of same scheme found that 60% of the people that availed of it did not need it. It was basically used as risk spreading tool
Timing belt wrote: » I have admitted that I was wrong about it 65+ but I was correct that the majority are in rural areas and provided data to back it up.
PropQueries wrote: » Does this article help either side of the argument here: Irish independent: https://m.independent.ie/opinion/ronan-lyons-make-no-mistake-the-country-needs-apartments-not-houses-37776681.html
schmittel wrote: » As far as I'm concerned the debate is about Timing's claim that people 65+ in rural areas account for the majority of the underoccupied houses. Though he seems to have shifted the goal posts a little to deflect the question!
Timing belt wrote: » You are the one trying to misrepresent data to prove there is no housing crisis... first it was vacant properties which you claimed Ireland was way higher than most countries something that I proved to you was incorrect.. Second it was that we have under-occupied housing in cities which yet again was proven wrong....
Timing belt wrote: » Who is misrepresenting data?
Timing belt wrote: » The data is telling us that we are consistent over the past 10 years and that most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+
schmittel wrote: » I use the phrase clutching at straws when somebody comes up with a ridiculous observation to explain some data that appears anomalous. The theory is often instantly obviously wrong to anybody that doesn't share the same bias. When the flaw is pointed out, rather than saying "ok yes I see that now," the poster clutches at straws to explain why the original observation was right. That's what mean by clutching at straws. Eg saying that families with kids explain the underoccupancy numbers. It's clearly nonsense. Or that people over 65 in rural areas represent most of the 3.4m people living in underoccupied houses. Again, if you thought about that for a nanosecond you'd realise it's a fatuous statement to make. As you're fond of dismissing posters and accusing them of misrepresenting data, you're not the only one detecting a whiff of irony here. Also this deflection attempt is kind of ironic.
Marius34 wrote: » You are searching something in my comment if you can find an issue, it appears you are not even interested to understand why there are more rooms per person in Ireland. Look I mentioned few times, the key point in here is the difference of dwelling type, which you totally ignoring. Regarding the difference from other countries, I would assume it's fairly normal in western world for single, couples, retired to live in under-occupied homes, that's why I don't even discuss it. What I would assume is not typical in other countries, is that large proportion of families with children in Ireland live in under-occupied homes.
Timing belt wrote: » No misrepresentation just highlighting how you dismissed people yesterday and accused them of grasping at straws which is what I find Ironic.:D:D:D
Timing belt wrote: » Why not change the topic now that you are not able to back up your figures.... Lets hope people forget and you can use them again in a few weeks...
schmittel wrote: » I notice you bolded the bit saying "Which is due to accommodation type difference from rest of Europe. Smaller dwellings, but with more rooms." But I am sure you also noticed in quoting my post saying Nonsense that I bolded the bit "Families with 1-2 children of course doesn't explain all the 70%. But it explain big portion of difference from other countries.. That's what's nonsense. Families do not explain any of difference never mind a big portion of the difference. It's the people living in family homes without children that are clocking up underoccupied figures. But you knew that, because I explained it a few posts later Please don't misrepresent my posts as well as data. You'll also notice that when I said Marius was clutching at straws it was specifically about trying to explain the numbers because of families with kids, nothing to do with different accommodation types:
schmittel wrote: » I notice you bolded the bit saying "Which is due to accommodation type difference from rest of Europe. Smaller dwellings, but with more rooms." But I am sure you also noticed in quoting my post saying Nonsense that I bolded the bit "Families with 1-2 children of course doesn't explain all the 70%. But it explain big portion of difference from other countries.. That's what's nonsense. Families do not explain any of difference never mind a big portion of the difference. It's the people living in family homes without children that are clocking up underoccupied figures. But you knew that, because I explained it a few posts later Please don't misrepresent my posts as well as data.
Timing belt wrote: » Is this really Nonsense ? will you admit you were wrong?
schmittel wrote: » The EU average is 1.6 per person. We are at 2.1 rooms per person. So by your own demonstration, it is not true to say "Many families with kids live in 3 bed houses, which means they live in under-occupied property." You're clutching at straws here.
Originally Posted by Marius34 View Post Because there are as well homes with 1 person, or 2 persons. There are all kind of households like in any other European countries. There are empty old country side homes, there are holiday homes, like anywhere else. Families with 1-2 children of course doesn't explain all the 70%. But it explain big portion of difference from other countries. Which is due to accommodation type difference from rest of Europe. Smaller dwellings, but with more rooms.
schmittel wrote: » Nonsense.
awec wrote: My assumption was this being similar to the UK scheme. It sounds very similar, with the no fees for 5 years then a monthly fee etc etc.
Timing belt wrote: » :D:D you can't admit that we don't have a housing crisis... first it is vacant properties now it is under occupied houses.... what next will you come up with when you are wearing your tin foil hat
schmittel wrote: » Is this an accurate representation of the data: I just can't see how it is even close to being an accurate representation. Could you explain?
Timing belt wrote: » I did not misrepresent data and never have... You are the one that accused others of clutching at straws when they were trying to explain the data. Which in hindsight they were right!!!! that is what was Ironic.
schmittel wrote: » Nope, what you actually said last night was that the data tells us most of the underoccupied houses were because of 65+ living in rural areas. Followed by: That post didn't age particularly well. Having said all that, it is always good when someone is big enough to admit they misrepresented data, particularly when they are so fond of accusing others of doing exactly that.
PropQueries wrote: » I’m not a statistics expert, but would using the median calculation be more relevant than calculating the average in ireland given the large houses in Ireland which skew the relevance of using averages compared to many other EU countries. For example if there’s 10 three-bed houses in an estate and 9 are occupied by one person each who’s over 75 and the last one is rented out to ten persons by a slum landlord, the average is c. 2 occupants per household but that’s of no relevance in making policy decisions as it would definitely be under-occupied.
Timing belt wrote: » What I said last night is that you trying to prove that we have no housing crisis by using the under-occupied data was clutching at Straws and said it was Ironic. I was wrong in saying 65+ which I have already stated.
Timing belt wrote: » Your quote from earlier seems to be the case: If it is all down to the fact that the kids of Leitrim got out of there as fast as possible, then yes, there is nothing to see here Telling people they are clutching at straws seems a bit Ironic now
If it is all down to the fact that the kids of Leitrim got out of there as fast as possible, then yes, there is nothing to see here
Timing belt wrote: » Are you willing to admit that the data does not indicate that we have a under-occupied issue in the cities?
schmittel wrote: » I get you're saying all that now. But there was no assumption yesterday. What the data was telling us then was: I'm asking you a simple question - having looked at the data again, do you think you were you wrong yesterday to say that or do you you still believe the data is telling us that most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+? Ignoring that question and posting about different types of housing stock and assumptions sounds a lot like clutching at straws. Which is kind of ironic.
Timing belt wrote: » What I am saying is that reason that Ireland is an outlier is due to its type of housing stock and that whatever capacity that we do have is mainly in Rural areas. Yes I assumed last night that there would be a higher % of 65+ in the Rural areas than there actually is. No where does the data suggest that we could solve the housing crisis with a different use of existing stock in Urban areas. Maybe you utilise stock in DLR better as 1 in 5 properties there is in the 65+ category with the exception of this the data suggest that we couldn't solve the housing crisis with a different use of existing stock in Urban areas as the capacity is in Rural locations.
schmittel wrote: » Are you still saying that most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
