"average Dublin house prices should fall to ‘the €300,000 mark" according to Many Lou McD.

The new pension scheme is very different to the old one, so they might be disappointed with it. In most cases it is working out as equivalent to an employer contribution of 7-8%.

Would having a state company increase the number of workers or would it just change who the existing workers were working for?

Does the state typically do a good job of delivering services? Could we expect the same here?

But but, feelings and real communism has been been achieved yadda yadda.

Pie in the sky waffle that never stands up to scrutiny.

They'll be back with more hot takes no doubt.

A private sector QS with 30 years experience would be earning six figures plus bonus and other perks. There’s no way this public building company will be dishing out those sort of packages.

That poster’s FIL might be happy to take a severe pay cut to finish out his career in the public sector but I’m not sure many others would.

Here is a list of jobs postings looking for carpenters in Dublin. The money doesn't appear to be out of whack with what would be available in the public sector or civil service.

https://ie.indeed.com/jobs?q=carpenter&l=Dublin%2C+County+Dublin

Self published, all done for effect.

The calculations appear to assume it is all financed. If it is hypothetically all financed - and assuming that there is a company structure - then the developer takes zero personal risk. The banks are taking the risk, and the interest they charge includes compensation for that.

If - in reality likely - they do put in some money, they are including the cost of that money already. i.e. if it is going to cost me 30m to buy and develop the site, and I have 30m in my back pocket which I use, then if my cost of building calculation includes a 20% cost for financing (for example) because that is what it would cost to finance the project from start to completion, then I have 6m allocated to my final costs for that. That's already my compensation for putting in the money and taking that risk.

Building or buying property is the most expensive investment for most people and is a massive cost for most states.

If you or state get timing wrong it can be a very expensive or relatively cheap.

The Irish State had it's best chance after the last boom; high unemployment, cheap materials and they controlled NAMA. Have away prime property for cents on the Euro that we are now paying through the nose to rent for our citizens.

That was our chance as a nation, the ship has sailed and catching up is going to involve a lot of pain given price of materials and acute shortage of skilled labour.

A mature state would look to keep control on pressures on system(immigration at twice what ESRI predicted and we planned for) and target the immigrants and skills that suit us and what we need.

One of the biggest bottlenecks is where will the new carpenters/plumbers stay.

The point I was addressing was the claim/implication that the public sector would not be able to attract tradesmen. There are plenty of tradesmen who aren't on exorbitant money whom I am sure would be happy to take on more secure employment with better benefits.

There would be plenty of engineers etc already working in the public sector.

No need for the strawmen hysterics

(I'm not a SF supporter by any means btw)

Those jobs are private sector jobs. How much do you think the public sector would need to give a carpenter to entice him over from a private sector 45k a year + private pension then? Most of the private jobs also require the tradesman to supply his own tools (and transport) too.

Isn't it mad though. When the prior generation was in charge, the likes of corporations and councils were able to manage such things. Now that we have the boomers in those senior positions........they don't appear to know how to make things work...................I wonder would it be too late for some of them to receive further education and training?

Take the example of the 100 houses. The developer margin is over 5m on those. Do you think that it would be beyond your capability - if you were in a senior public sector role - to locate and hire say 5 competent people on total packages of 100k a year each, and give them 8 years to replicate the herculean personal effort of that developer? Because that would be a saving of a million quid for starters.

One post where I cheerlead them please.

Just one post - to try to prove you are not just completely and absolutely spoofing.

I've 18k+ posts. One will do

Thanks.

(You're going to look very silly......you'll spend a while looking for one, then you won't find it, so you'll just ignore this post and pretend you didn't see it)

BTW, as for replying to someone talking about trades, the post I replied to said

you should remember that ... you posted it

ok fair enough. Apologies that I was a bit aggressive in my response as I am far from a person who follows anything SF say. If one of them happens to say anything in line with what I say, I can assure you that that is a coincidence.

I'm not looking at any details as per SF. I'm focusing on the point about the developer margin. I've made the same point on other threads through the years. The other easy point - which I've also focused on before - is the price attributed to land costs. Developers and speculators outbid each other to buy land and then demand that that is the value of the land and they deserve X on top of that. That is not the normal way things should work in a functioning market. If someone overpays for something, then they should take the hit. We can't have situations like the apocryphal story of Sean Dunne asking his missus blindly to pick a number between 1 and 100 and then bidding that number in millions for a house in D4.

100k from each unit under the SCSI costings is attributable to the land costs. Not doing anything with the land - just as a result of buying it.

I am not here to defend SF, and I don't support them, but I have not seen SF suggest that they will create a State building contractor?

Note the distinction between property development and building contractor.

Property development takes years to assemble sites, get planning, get finance, deal with loads of hurdles, etc. As a result, property developers are expected to earn 15% net profit margins. There are loads of risks along the way.

In contrast, say UCD or Dalata hotel group hire a building contractor to build a new block. The building contractor is not involved with site assembly, design, planning, finance, etc. They simply build according to the plans. As a result, there is lower risk, and their profit margins are lower.

As far as I can see, SF hope / plan that the State in some form (LA? AHB? LDA?) will do more property development, and so remove the 15% developer's margin, and reduce the finance costs.

I don't think SF expect for the State to become a building contractor. They see the State as hiring building contractors much more to build more houses.

Maybe the PBP do propose for the State to get involved in building contractor?

Ok, lets say there are 10,000 sites.

If any government builds on 1,000 of them, now you have 9,000 available sites. Then lets say they build 1,000 more. Now you have 8,000 sites.

Can you see where I am going with this?

How desirable are all of those brownfield sites? How many 3-bed semis can they support?

The only way this even nearly works is if you start replacing houses with apartment blocks and even then you are just stretching out the timelines, the end result is the same.