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

"We need more retail staff, more nurses, more hospitality staff, more bus drivers, more taxi drivers, more construction staff and so on."

I'm not having a go at you here, but I think that this line of thinking is demonstrative of the root of the problem that Ireland faces. If the economy has grown to the point where there are vacancies on that level, then does it not imply that the economy has grown beyond the capacity of its host country to support?

The natives (the Irish) are not filling those positions because there are not enough of us, and it seems that the system can only be maintained through constant, enormous levels of immigration. This, to me, is the flaw of the infinite growth system. For how much longer can this be maintained, and what is the cost of maintaining it?

Supply and demand are fairly basic principles of economics, not a conspiracy theory.

More humans in competition for low skilled jobs = worse working conditions and worse salaries.

More humans in competition and demand for housing = higher rent prices and worse accomodation quality.

Those are just facts.

Trying to equate nurses or bus drivers with unskilled asylum seekers is a classic moving of the goal posts - nobody is saying we should restrict the numbers of skilled immigrants doing essential jobs, who arrive on work permits. They're an entirely different, and far more beneficial for the country, group.

Unqualified, unvetted, asylum seekers arriving illegally by the tens of thousands, and requiring housing provided by the state, are the problem - and are what people are calling to be reduced significantly, in this thread and elsewhere.

In this thread in particular because of the positive impact on the housing market reducing asylum seeker numbers by 20,000 or so a year (which is entirely possible based on the Denmark example) would have. And in using that €1bn+ a year spent on them to better impact the housing crisis.

FG, and Helen McEntee, have been in control of our immigration system for the last 5 years. Under their control we have the highest numbers of asylum seekers being accepted into the state ever in the year 2024. FG can say whatever they want in their manifesto, but the idea that they'll be tough on immigration just isn't backed up by real world actions.

if the resident irish were filling those shortages, we wouldnt need the same level of immigration; They are not, so we do

An interesting point that needs to be examined further

One of FG's first policies was dole cheats cheat us all.

Carers allowance was targeted as part of that program if I'm not mistaken which allowed a relative to take care of a sick/elderly family member for a total cost roughly €250 p/w to the state

Now many of these are herded into homes that might cost 2500 p/w or private companies doing home help at much greater cost

Guess who invested heavily in these business, Guess where these businesses are sourcing labour. Guess who's paying for it

FG are not lying when they say there business friendly, that does not mean its good for the population, the taxpayer etc

Exactly. State should work to improve work conditions and pay for the Irish nurses and doctors. Stop pumping money in agencies and middle management. Plus I don't remember seeing a Philippino or Indian nurse living here on their own, usually one gets in, 3 more relatives follow.

Of the 150k immgrants that arrived into Ireland in the 12 months to April 2024, less than 20k were asylum seekers.

13% of the total arrivals isnt a marker that supports low skilled immigration as a principle motive for the govts immigration policy.

"If you look at the population today in the capital, we are chronically under manned, in terms of services. That wont be fixed without hiring more people."

What's wrong with having a sparsely populated country?

I could flip this around and say that services are chronically over subscribed. That is to say, there are too many people. Hiring more people will increase demand for services in an of itself because more people will be needed to fill the positions. If there were less people, the demand would fall, but that's never raised because it goes against the idea the economy must grow in perpetuity.

I'm not calling you out personally here, but I cannot understand how anyone would look at Dublin and conclude that the problem is a lack of people. The public transport is packed, the M50 is jammed every day, the streets are teeming with people and, of course, accommodation is not to be had.

Obviously we need to maintain some level of population here, but why is the answer always immigration? Why can we not pursue policy that would encourage Irish people to have more children? If we had a birth rate of something close to that magic number of 2.1, there would be little need for immigration save for a healthy coming and going of people.

I dont disagree with incentives for people to have more children here, but at the same time, we will always need an immigrant workforce to grow; just like every other city on the planet.

Infinite growth will always be the end goal, so long as the dollar keeps the world turning. Thats the truth of it.

Infinite growth cannot be sustained forever. We live on a finite planet.

Personally I love that Dublin is teeming with people, particularly our new immigrant friends. The place feels incredibly alive and international. In the last decade I've made so many international friends, it's been brilliant.

The only real big issues I come across day to day really people wise is local scrotes. And they're all Irish. If the Great Replacement Theory could replace them with some international tech workers that would be great.

I'm sure I've said this to you before but the plan is to import people to build houses and then import more people to build their houses, right?

And in your head this sounds sustainable?

Or do you just believe this is the way it is and we just have to accept we will all be living in overcrowded shanty towns eventually with people riding on the roofs of buses and trains and field hospitals for bursting A&Es?

Are you aware of the cognitive distortion known as 'catastrophising'?

Is suggest looking it up and applying it to your last paragraph.

I don't think your French friends are completely wrong though. Migrants within the EU have a different status to non EU migrants. It's just a fact.

Oh they're 100% correct.

I was pointing out how people's perspectives of our crisis change based on their own situation and how one person's 'immigrant taking up space' is another person's entitlement for being part of the EU.

I can also fully admit my opinion may be different if I didn't own a house, or if I was an asylum seeker or if I was from another planet.

But it's not catastrophising when we accept planes can't be over loaded or boats because they might sink?

We understand load bearing when it comes to engineering and it's not catastrophising to say things would fall down without it.

But In terms of the infrastructure of the country, no limits, no need for critical thinking? It's catastrophising to say if we keep loading it woth people it will break?

All because you like more brown faces than white in your office, so you can feel more cosmopolitan?

I'm normally migration positive, but look at the case study I'm giving you

Pre 2012 many sick/elderly were cared for voluntarily by relative that was fully aware of there needs for a paltry sum of 200 p/W

Now many are herded into care homes that can cost anything up to 2,500 p/W. There sourcing foreign labour and paying salaries incompatible with life in Ireland. There wages need to be topped up to afford rent, family income supplement etc all at great cost to the taxpayer.

The taxpayer has to pay much higher rent because of the housing deficit, higher taxes because the care of elderly that used to cost 200p/w, now with subsidies and cost of living payments is close to 3k. Far more homes are required due to more foreign staff, and a strong liklihood that the patients home now lies empty and unused, whereas the old system was most likely housing neutral

One nursing home provider alone had 355 work permits granted this year.

Why has the state disincentivised the extreme low cost solution in favour of the massively expensive solution plus the associated housing implications ?