SmokyMo wrote: » I still havent heard a single tech company offering a switch to permanent wfh. Maybe for some peripheral support roles? Options to wfh was always there even before pandemic.
JimmyVik wrote: » I see in the papers today that half of companies are saying they will have some sort of WFH when COVID is gone. I wonder what "some sort of" means. My company has "some sort of" WFH for the past few years. Certain people can WFH one to two days a week if they are able to. If nothing else changes then the same amount of days will be done in the office as there were before. I now from being at interviews that they tend to offer people who state they want to work from home less than the ones who dont state it. HR seem to have the view that that person will settle for less if we give them 2 days a week from home as a favour.
Hubertj wrote: » Also when a lease is up for renewal. Employers can fly kites about wfh, landlords get spooked and it is leverage when lease is up for review. Not zuckerbergs comments last year about wfh just before the deal for offices in Manhattan....
Villa05 wrote: » Mine have said a minimum of 2 days per week on site. Whether the employer is the owner or paying rent on their premises will be a significant factor to the degree of wfh adoption
schmittel wrote: » SF can appeal to the non workers too with all the range of current schemes - council houses, long term leases, HAP etc etc. One of the attractions of this scheme to me is that the number of eligible people for all of the above should be reduced. If the bank will give you a 200k mortgage then you should go down the affordable housing route not hold your hand out for HAP. This should be a priority for future govts, whereas FF/FGs policy will increase the burden on these schemes. No idea of stats available on % of full time workers v social welfare in social housing. But I would be pretty confident that the % of full time workers with private mortgages is way higher than those on welfare with private mortgages.
JimmyVik wrote: I see in the papers today that half of companies are saying they will have some sort of WFH when COVID is gone. I wonder what "some sort of" means.
PropQueries wrote: But the statistics do show one thing. They're not costing us as much as many appear to believe IMO
PropQueries wrote: What accounts for the near €80k difference between Dublin and the North-West? And, it's not higher-specs as they're the exact same 3-bed semi and they're both near enough A1/A2 rebuilds. I still don't buy the story that the construction wage premium in Dublin can possibly bridge that difference in cost IMO
Cyrus wrote: » I realise you are being facetious but it won’t be any different , however I do disagree that all council estates are squalid ghettos. But this will have a risk of that for sure, and Sinn Fein will want to appeal to the non workers too unfortunately so It won’t be quite as noble as it’s made out . As an aside are stats available on the percentage of full time workers v social welfare recipients in social housing ?
schmittel wrote: » Good point. I now realize you’re totally correct. This scheme is no different to the council estates of yesteryear and will surely lead to large scale squalid ghettos.
Yurt! wrote: » You're aware that affordable housing is purchased by individuals/couples via a private mortgage right?
PropQueries wrote: » Another report out from the SCSI on the cost of rebuilding a home. They now put it at: "The Society of Chartered Surveyors in Ireland (SCSI) has published its latest guide to rebuilding costs, which shows the cost of rebuilding an average three-bed semi ranges from €218,000 in Dublin to €140,000 in the northwest." What accounts for the near €80k difference between Dublin and the North-West? And, it's not higher-specs as they're the exact same 3-bed semi and they're both near enough A1/A2 rebuilds. I still don't buy the story that the construction wage premium in Dublin can possibly bridge that difference in cost IMO Link to article in Irish Independent here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/rebuilding-costs-rise-due-to-energy-standards-and-cost-of-materials-1.4510134
cnocbui wrote: » How much of that emptiness is due to the previous occupants working in tech and returning to their home countries to WFH?
bellylint wrote: » just interested, where do you base/get that from? Would like to look into it more myself.
Mad_maxx wrote: » why New Zealand may i ask ? they do have a much more pro workers taxation code , is it purely down to this ?
Yurt! wrote: » He's in for a land if he attempts to buy property in proximity any of the cities in NZ. Their housing crisis is an order of magnitude worse than ours, and he'll find himself on boards.nz arguing the toss about what is and isn't affordable there as well; perhaps on the other side of the equation as the proceeds of his buy-to-lets can't buy him a dunny in Upper Hutt.
cnocbui wrote: » All the government has to do is borrow a bit more and all fixed. Can't see any problems with that.
Yurt! wrote: » It scrambles some Irish folks brains the whole concept of affordable housing. In many people's imagination, there are only two types of housing possible: Social housing filled with Margret Cash clones strung-out on heroin, and mortgaged private housing filled with the self-styled brave industrious and long-suffering Paddy everyman who holds up the sky - and nothing in-between. Any stigma is a stigma of ignorance. Affordable housing projects delivered at scale have the real potential to break the back on the housing crisis and alleviate what would otherwise become a decade after decade quality of life and social crisis.
Timing belt wrote: » Council house were rented by the tenant and later offered for sale at a affordable price.... they were not free houses given away.
schmittel wrote: » Building an estate of houses and selling them to people who qualify for mortgages of circa 200k is different to building an estate of houses and giving them to people who qualify for a free house. A bit silly to suggest otherwise. IMO.
Timing belt wrote: » Council houses in the past were not totally filled with dole scroungers but with people on lower incomes.. I get the fact that people will buy so should have more respect for their properties and neighbourhoods but an area with 'Affordable houses' will have the same stigma attached than council estates did previously. That is not me saying that people should look down on them, it is just saying that I don't see how it is different. If FF/FG/G started building big council estates tomorrow to house people in HAP Rent prices would fall and houses would become more affordable of the back of this but there would be a massive outcry that council estates lead to ghettos and needs to be avoided at all costs.
Timing belt wrote: » Council houses in the past were not totally filled with dole scroungers but with people on lower incomes..
Yurt! wrote: » He's in for a land if he attempts to buy property in proximity any of the cities in NZ. Their housing crisis is an order of magnitude worse than ours, and he'll find himself on boards.nz arguing the toss about what is and isn't affordable there as well; perhaps on the other side of the equation the proceeds of his buy-to-lets can't buy him a dunny in Upper Hutt.
schmittel wrote: » The difference that leaps out is the fact the houses being are being sold for in excess of 200k. However they envisage delivering it they are unlikely to be filled with dole scroungers.
