Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

it also applied in the private sector…and did so long after it changed in public sector in some cases

Honestly don't know. I don't know enough about the industry and to be fair by your own admission neither do you. You've don't have any evidence that's it's the falsification of figures. Leaping to conclusions because you don't understand something is text book conspiracy theory.

Common sense is a meaningless phrase. Remember a few hundred years ago it was common sense that the sun went around the earth, it was common sense that the 4 humors were accurate when it comes to medicine. I could keep going with examples of how often common sense can be completely wrong. So common sense is evidence of nothing.

Again to talk about Galway are we talking about a house out in the middle of no where in Connemara or Galway city, or is it a rough average. Connemara is going to be more expensive due to less labour competition and higher travel and delivery costs. The point about finishes has been explained numerous times but you keep dismissing it. Again remember this Hypothetical house doesn't exist and if the report uses historical data from an area it will use the costs of a typical finish in this area.

You've made the assumption in one of your posts that everything in Dublin should cost more because it was common sense. Any decent knowledge of utilities/infrastructure/ construction/manufacturing would tell you urban areas provide large economies of scale that helps in a lot of ways versus more rural areas. Obviously it's not black and white but you are trying to apply "common sense" to a complex area. You need to be very careful of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Realistically to properly understand the differences you would need to review the details of the data, it's assumptions, where the figures that make up the data, limitations (no data set is perfect)etc etc,. You will also need a degree of knowledge about the industry.

You've made a huge leap to make an accusation that the figures have been falsified/massaged when some of your questions can be explained without even back of envelope calculations or any remote investigation of the data.

So what if something costs 3 times, 100 times more so what? It's an observation fair enough but you have provided no evidence that's it's wrong. Your prejudices IE common sense are not evidence

All you done made a few observations which you don't understand fair enough and then jump straight to this is some big conspiracy about the figures being massaged. Again you have no evidence that the figures are wrong. Your only evidence is that they don't match your prejudices(IE common sense). Anyone who actually calls you out on this suddenly has malign motives. This approach is text book conspiracy theory. Look at vaccines denial, flat earthers etc you have the same approach. Find something they don't understand, don't make an effort to find/listen to boring if complicated explanation, jump to conspiracy, and then accuse anyone who calls them out as being part of the conspiracy. Your posts on the report follow that same process.

You have made some interesting observations. But all they are is observations. It would be interesting to see some of the reasons behind the actual figures. Particularly from someone with hard evidence or knowledge of the industry.

Building houses of any size and amount is complicated and requires specialist knowledge. It's no different from any occupation. A person may as well tell a doctor how to do their job because their "common sense" overrides years of training and experience.

are you just ignoring everything I say repeatedly….for about the 10 time the price variance will mainly come down to labour and land…. You have fixated on some erroneous data that you’ve picked up on…great but it’s small change and not the main reason for price differential. Which was your original question.

Your question specifically to me

Can @Timing belt , @Bass Reeves , @Dav010 or anybody else who is convinced that there is no room for construction costs to fall without builders downing tools explain the regional discrepancies in the SCSI figures?

majority of construction cost is labour and land… and as we know labour costs feed into all costs and the higher the hard costs mainly labour and land the higher the soft costs as they are normally a variable based on hard costs…. But rather than look at this let’s talk about loos and guttering 2 things that are not mentioned anywhere in the report specifically.

not being disingenuous just not going down some rabbit hole (which is where most of your posts end up) and sticking to the topic that was being discussed regarding a 30% drop in construction costs and the fact that it’s not realistically achievable without trades people taking a pay cut or something happens to lower land costs.

Might be an idea for your New Year’s resolution….rather than trade insults which it looks like you may have already started but I will put that down to your inability to control it and move on.