Current public sentiment towards the housing market?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Have to back up glenbhoy a bit, housing is a right but OWNING a house is not although it is preferable for everyone that wants to to be able to own without commiting to massive 35 year loans that result in you paying around 50% more in real terms than the purchase price of your house. Scandinavia is big on everyone being able to afford housing and their social housing is excellent and abundant.
 
blindjustice said:
Im not suggesting people are living on the streets but since the country has supposedly never been better off then whats with all the people commuting from so far away with a crappy quality of life
Click to expand...

If I were going to crib about the way things were regards the country being well off but it not being apparent in XYZ...I would highlight the following items:

1) health system and
2) primary education funding and
3) long term public transport funding.

I wouldn't be complaining about the commuting and the quality of life side of things here because there is an element of free choice in buying half way to Cavan (assuming working in Dublin) - there is a reasonable quantity of rental available in Dublin as witnessed by static or sub-inflation rising rents, and if people had chosen the quality of life argument over the buying property argument a couple of things might be different namely:
1) slightly higher rentals
2) lower capital appreciation because of lower level of purchasers.

Again, there is an element of choice involved here which I have no doubt will be forgotten as the dust starts to fly.
 
Glenbhoy said:
But wage inflation is currently in excess of both inflation and interest rates too, and inflation has been below interest rates for the past 3/4 years. So what is the difference?
In addition, there's no point in looking at borrowing in terms of salary, surely you must look at is a multiple of net household income in order to have any meaningful comparisons.
Click to expand...
Wage inflation is barely matching general inflation and not even matching the inflation many couples are facing, general inflation is an average,i'd say the inflation for your average FTB couple in their lae 20's /30's is well above 4%.

The point about salary multiples is the banks used to only lend a smaller multiple which reduced the volume of debt a couple had relative to their combined incomes and hence higher rate werent so crippling .
 
blindjustice said:
Im not suggesting people are living on the streets but since the country has supposedly never been better off then whats with all the people commuting from so far away with a crappy quality of life
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's a choice that people are willing to make, it's not something i'd do in a million years, but many people buy into the hype and the dream (particularly that one propagated by developers, you know, the couple on the patio drinking their wine.....).
People are in a rush to buy now, before they leave college they're eyeing up their first apartment, people aren't content to live in apartments, but high density is the only way to avoid the commute (particularly with our abysmal transport infrastructure).
Yes, there have been many mistakes made by planners, developers and government, but, we cannot blame them for making people buy in ultimately undesireable locations for what may prove to be ridiculous amounts of money.
 
bearishbull said:
Have to back up glenbhoy a bit, housing is a right but OWNING a house is not although it is preferable for everyone that wants to to be able to own without commiting to massive 35 year loans that result in you paying around 50% more in real terms than the purchase price of your house. Scandinavia is big on everyone being able to afford housing and their social housing is excellent and abundant.
Click to expand...

The problem in this country, as I see it, is a significant number of people owning more than one house, with the knock of effect of limiting supply. The tendency in this country to hold on to starter homes for investment reasons is a case in point in this country.
 
Glenbhoy said:
What are you referring to?
If what you want me to say is this:
"I am not aware of any family being denied a home", there I've said it, now what?
Click to expand...
Oh I see. Well you might want to cast your gaze over the waiting lists for affordable housing one of the days so. For a start. You might carry on by going back over the thread and looking at responses to your earlier posts.

Its amazing what you can find out when you try to inform yourself.
 
I think the idea that the government isn't culpable to a great degree in allowing this shambles develop is wrong. The government owes a duty of care to the less 'able' members of our society whether they be physically impaired or those who are the target of unethical lending practices by rapacious banks.

Market regulation is accepted as essential by economists of every hue, similarly by political parties. If the government fails to regulate then why have government?
 
tententwenty said:
Oh I see. Well you might want to cast your gaze over the waiting lists for affordable housing one of the days so. For a start. You might carry on by going back over the thread and looking at responses to your earlier posts.

Its amazing what you can find out when you try to inform yourself.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the various posts on here about the amount of rental accommodation available, the posts concerning the reasonableness of rent or some other posts?
As bearish states, it may not be desireable for people to rent as opposed to own, but it's an option that perhaps more people should consider. It's not too long ago that a large percentage of our population was housed in local authority housing, it's also quite common in many European countries for people to rent their entire lives.
 
tententwenty said:
Oh I see. Well you might want to cast your gaze over the waiting lists for affordable housing one of the days so. For a start. You might carry on by going back over the thread and looking at responses to your earlier posts.

Its amazing what you can find out when you try to inform yourself.
Click to expand...

It's a basic human right to have somewhere to live, not necessarily to own. Nobody on those lists is living rough (by definition, since they need to be living locally to qualify!)

It's amazing what you can find out when you actually read the OPs original point correctly.
 
Duplex said:
Market regulation is accepted as essential by economists of every hue, similarly by political parties. If the government fails to regulate then why have government?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. While the Chavez-style economics espoused by some board members here makes my blood run cold, it is clear the government has failed in its duty to regulate both the housing and lending market.

As Trichet himself said, Ireland's policies have been "pro-cyclical" in this regard.

Poor urban planning, sloppy bank lending practices, tax incentives to invest in an overheated housing market and encouraging young couples to buy outrageously overpriced property do not a good government make.
 
Anyone sick of the long commute in heavy traffic? Why not spend 40k on this rather than a merc! Would be popular in commuterland if you could land/park at the IFSC/docks!!!
[broken link removed]
 
Duplex said:
I think the idea that the government isn't culpable to a great degree in allowing this shambles develop is wrong. The government owes a duty of care to the less 'able' members of our society whether they be physically impaired or those who are the target of unethical lending practices by rapacious banks.

Market regulation is accepted as essential by economists of every hue, similarly by political parties. If the government fails to regulate then why have government?
Click to expand...
I think they were like a referee in who let a few tackles go unpunished early on, by the time they realised it was time to act, it was too late. It wasn't all their fault though, they were unlucky in that IR control had been ceded to the ECB at that precise time when we needed it most.
At this stage, it's too late, if they touch anything it could be catastrophic.
What do you think they could have done given that IR control was gone? Bear in mind that they attempted some measures back in 1999, I personally would have maintained these, but apparently they led to a drop in rental supply and massive hikes in rent.
Oh yeah, forgot about tax incentives - absolutely ridiculous, but sure isn't Carrrick on Shannon all the better for them:)
 
Last edited:
Duplex said:
I think the idea that the government isn't culpable to a great degree in allowing this shambles develop is wrong. The government owes a duty of care to the less 'able' members of our society whether they be physically impaired or those who are the target of unethical lending practices by rapacious banks.

Market regulation is accepted as essential by economists of every hue, similarly by political parties. If the government fails to regulate then why have government?
Click to expand...

Firstly, I'm not sure that market regulation is accepted as necessary as the current tendency in liberal economics is for it to be as hands off as possible.

Secondly, while I would say that the Central Bank should perhaps have taken a closer interest in what the banks have been up to, it is still a shocking indictment of people in this country that they are incapable of regulating themselves.

The truth is people who borrowed huge sums of money to buy property are also culpable to a great degree for doing so. Abdicating them of that responsibility will not prevent something similar happening in the future. But this is not surprising, because if you look at the way we drive in this country, it is exactly the same. If we have accidents, it is someone else's fault for not stopping us from driving so badly. The fact that the buck stops with the driver appears to be anethema here, and the fact remains that the buck does also stop with the people who borrowed the money. If this is not accepted or learned at some stage then I will truly believe that we deserve a nanny state.

As to whether public sentiment has changed or not - the one bit of anecdotal evidence which I bring to the table is that it has ceased to be a subject for discussion which is, in itself, telling.
 
bearishbull said:
Anyone sick of the long commute in heavy traffic? Why not spend 40k on this rather than a merc! Would be popular in commuterland if you could land/park at the IFSC/docks!!!
[broken link removed]
Click to expand...

Perfect for spotting development land, corner houses or big back gardens with development potential :D
 
Glenbhoy said:
Do you mean the various posts on here about the amount of rental accommodation available, the posts concerning the reasonableness of rent or some other posts?
As bearish states, it may not be desireable for people to rent as opposed to own, but it's an option that perhaps more people should consider. It's not too long ago that a large percentage of our population was housed in local authority housing, it's also quite common in many European countries for people to rent their entire lives.
Click to expand...
But why? Its an artificial situation. There aren't many people in this country, there is plenty of land, and shedload of houses, about one in six of which is sitting empty, not even rented out. Therefore the prices have escalated at this demented rate due to extraordinary conditions, and when people could have their own housing, there is no reason why they shouldn't. Unless there are minority groups attempting to set the situation to recreate a landlord class, something I feel should be vigorously opposed. And there are a great many people who will feel the same. Not that it matters, the market is well on its way to resolving the situation all by itself.

I didn't say owning a house was a basic human right, for all the pedants in the crowd. Being denied home ownership in order to make certain groups more wealthy, however, thats a different story entirely. And knock off the guff about "no one is stopping them buying". With housing at 12 times average salaries, there may as well be a law in place for many people, and young families.
 
Calina said:
As to whether public sentiment has changed or not - the one bit of anecdotal evidence which I bring to the table is that it has ceased to be a subject for discussion which is, in itself, telling.
Click to expand...

Good point - it's all gone a bit GPO on a Saturday in 1980 around here :)
 
Calina said:
If we have accidents, it is someone else's fault for not stopping us from driving so badly.
Click to expand...
Totally agree - I had a 'heated debate' with a friend of mine who insisted it was the gardai's fault if he was speeding: "If they enforced the speed limits I wouldn't speed" was his argument - and his brother's a garda!!
It's this cute-hoorism mindframe that argues "if I can get away with it then it must be ok" which has led so many people into ridiculous levels of indebtedness - " sure the banks would never lend me the money/increase my credit limit/allow me to finance a 42in plasma over 40yrs if they weren't sure I'm good for the money in the end. If it all goes belly-up it must be their fault"
Make your own decisions and take responsibility for them - just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Of course, the bears could be quite wrong and in 10yrs all those 'poor commuters' will be laughing all the way to the bank......;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top