Ashbourne is not in Dublin!!!
Will you show Leitrim next?
The cost and duration of commute doesn't matter!
Ashbourne
Less than 200k
http://www.daft.ie/meath/houses-for-sale/ashbourne/24-baldara-court-ashbourne-meath-1483852/
Now here's a lovely one for 260k
http://www.daft.ie/meath/houses-for-sale/ashbourne/14-johnswood-park-ashbourne-meath-1550424/#img=1
You've demonstrated nothing to me. Zero figures, nonsense about a 30 euro train ticket and now red herrings about anti social behaviour.
Creme Egg and I have put up a load of grand houses. The truth is some people don't want to live in Tallaght and that's what this is about.
Ashbourne is not in Dublin!!!
Will you show Leitrim next?
The cost and duration of commute doesn't matter!
You are the ones propsoing a theory. You have offered zero figures to support it. Zero. Just random properties you've never seen in your lives. That's not an argument.
There is a discussion on another thread about good and bad journalism, this set me thinking about the falsehoods that are accepted as facts about Ireland's economic situation.
Here is a fact that does not sit with the current narrative.
There are 41, 3 bedroom properties for sale in Dublin at present for less than €250,000. With a 10% deposit that represents less than €1,100 a month over 25 years.
Housing in Dublin is not unaffordable.
Ashbourne is not in Dublin!!!
Will you show Leitrim next?
The cost and duration of commute doesn't matter!
Look at this lovely one in Enfield for 235K
http://www.daft.ie/meath/houses-for-sale/enfield/12-coachyard-manor-enfield-meath-1570470/
Ok Odyssey how much and what duration of commuting is OK to you?
It would be an interesting experiment if you could assess the value of that property now versus your inflation adjusted income over that period and determine if it would have been affordable to a version of you from a later generation looking to start out in 2017.
My parents would have done the same as you and there's zero chance they would be able to afford the house they bought with a comparable current income, even at the very bottom of a property recession.
You also had the opportunity - I'm assuming you were living at home between 13 and 27 - of biding your time to buy the property.
Maybe the perception of starting from the bottom has changed because it's not as viable a strategy as it once was.
You are the ones propsoing a theory. You have offered zero figures to support it. Zero. Just random properties you've never seen in your lives. That's not an argument.
The property I bought would have been around 6 times the average industrial wage for the time. I had savings of a third of the purchase price of the property at the time. (Had no holidays, never bought designer cloth's, never bought fancy coffee's nor went out for meals etc had a cheap car etc for all the years to save same). You are right I did remain at home before purchasing the property.
If I were to purchase that property now in the same state as it was then (no heating etc) it would cost around 9 times the average industrial wage. it should be noted that there would in my view be two reasons why the property value increased, one would be the improved facilities in the area and two its location.
You did mention that your parents would not have been able to purchase the house they are in now, this is part of life, I now live on the same road I grew up on. I could not have afforded to live here when I purchased my first house. Had I not gone to college at 27 parttime while working fulltime I would not be able to live where I grew up. I have continued to obtain both academic and professional qualifications 20yrs after going to college for the first time.
As populations grow cities expand out, this is a fact of life and with this expansion those properties closer to the city increase in value automatically simply due to their proximity to the city and the improved infrastructure therein.
I have to disagree with you regarding the starting from the bottom perception. I still think people can start from the bottom and work up to what they want, I feel that people don't want to start from the bottom and want it all now rather than working for it.
Most of us can tell those stories. I bought my first apartment at 23, two years after I qualified as a tradesman. I worked 7 days a week, had no car and didn't go on holidays. The up-side was it took my 15 minutes to cycle to work and I had no kids. That meant that while I worked 10-12 hours a day my short commute meant that my workday was the same length as someone who worked 8-10 hours a day but spent an hour getting to and from work. As I didn't have kids the lack of space and lack of facilities to dry clothes and minimal storage wasn't really a problem.The first thing I did when we purchased our home was go and buy seven beds and rent it out for the summer. We had a cheap wedding, no engagement ring, three days ‘honeymoon’ in Ireland. I lied to the credit union to get part of the deposit. My husband moved into the garage for the two summer months. I put up a curtain up over the garage door. Luckily there was a toilet in there. I moved in to work with my mother in her B&B for the duration. I did not live with my parents since I was 20 other than for the B&B later. Like you I educated myself. Zero holidays and no car until I moved abroad. It was very very stressful financially. Happily we did have central heating. Everything in it was second hand, purchased from the small ads. Had a green belling cooker for 40 IEP, guy who sold it to me had it out the shed and hooked it up to the lightbulb to prove to me it worked.
When people who live in the real world look at properties, one of the things they look at is the cost of coummuting.
The difference between living say in Raheny and Balbriggan and commuting in the city runs into thousands of euros over the course of a mortgage. At least that is what a prudent person would do.
Those kind of things matter when it comes to making things affordable, not the price of lattes in Starbucks.
If people on mid to high incomes are having to buy in Balbriggan or Ashbourne, with the attendant commuting costs, clearly the price of property in Dublin is not affordable.
Ashbourne is not in Dublin!!!
Will you show Leitrim next?
The cost and duration of commute doesn't matter!
No, I am not getting into a game of whack a mole\property. You have zero grounds for claiming a property is grand or lovely unless you have some familiarity with the property or area.
A property in Enfield is (a) not in Dublin, (b) would require a mortgage of 200K and (c) would require a salary of approx 60k, which if you look at the 2016 figures for salaries in ireland, represents 1x average fulltime salary and 1x average parttime salary. This is a clear indication that properties in Dublin are not affordable.
The contention that random searches on DAFT for properties in a certain price range = affordability crisis is fake news is a proposition with zero merit, it is a false contention and is an argument that is not worthy of respect.
I have heard not a single thing in the entire course of this thread to convince me otherwise.
Frankly, throwing out random houses outside Dublin and saying commuting costs don't matter as a rebuttal... I don't know if this is a serious contention anymore.
It’s not clear at all to me is the commuting the issue or the cost of it. Nor is it clear where posters are actually prepared to live and why.There is very little difference in the cost of commuting by public transport from Balbriggan or Raheny, the same annual ticket works for both. And as pointed out is very good value. The same ticket also works as far as Maynooth, Hazelhatch, Sallins/Naas, Kilcock/Kilcoole and Bray. If you want to add Dublin Bus services on top it's not much more per annum and it ends up after tax being about an extra fiver a week.
Perhaps some research of your own might be worth your while?
Most of us can tell those stories. I bought my first apartment at 23, two years after I qualified as a tradesman. I worked 7 days a week, had no car and didn't go on holidays. The up-side was it took my 15 minutes to cycle to work and I had no kids. That meant that while I worked 10-12 hours a day my short commute meant that my workday was the same length as someone who worked 8-10 hours a day but spent an hour getting to and from work. As I didn't have kids the lack of space and lack of facilities to dry clothes and minimal storage wasn't really a problem.
When you live far outside the city and far away from family raising children is much harder and much more expensive. They spend all day out of their home and the cost of childcare is higher because of the longer day the parents have. I don't see the same sense of entitlement among young people now that I saw in my own generation 15-20 years ago. My contemporaries wanted the show-house finish, the big TV's, the new cars and the holidays all at the same time. They are the ones who screwed things up by inflating the bubble, along with my parents generation who were in charge at the time and made sure that the later cuts effected them (and their pensions) least.
It's a bit rich for anyone who now has a home, particularly if it was purchased pre-boom, to suggest that there is no housing shortage in Dublin. We bought high but inflation depreciated our mortgages in real terms. The massive wage increases during the boom also helped greatly. There's been no inflation or real wage increases for the best part of a decade and there won't be any for the foreseeable future. The young people looking to buy houses now are suffering due to the actions of their parents and particularly their grandparents, the worst generation in the history of the State. The last thing we should be doing is talking down to them because as a group they are better than us.
My contemporaries are the people in their mid 40's who fueled the last boom/bubble. My parents generation, those in their 70's, were in charge during the boom. They ran the Public Service, the Banks, The Government, the regulatory bodies, the construction companies, the Unions etc. during that time. They steered the ship onto the rocks. They oversaw the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the State from their children to themselves. They not only maintained but increased pensions for themselves which their children would have to pay for but never enjoy. After the crash they increased taxes on their children to pay for those pensions, pensions which were left virtually untouched by the cuts. During their time in charge they squandered the windfall from the boom through gross incompetence and corruption. They couldn't have done a worse job if they tried. They betrayed their children and grandchildren and then talked down to them about how hard they had it, talking about themselves as the generation who built this country! As a group they are/were corrupt, incompetent, delusional fools.Your contemporaries did not understand the value of money nor were they educated by their parents of the risks involved with over stretching themselves. Your parents and their generation where not responsible for the problems as they were as you put it "in charge". You say that they protected themselves, on the contrary they were hit with for example the property tax. A tax based on the value of your property irrespective of your ability to either pay or for the services provided against same.
Why? Try 40% of the building cost is taxes and levies, a legacy of corruption and incompetence in the construction and banking sector and 30 years of mind boggling incompetence by the State.The question I think that needs to be asked is if as people say property is overvalued then why are we not seeing loads of house building going on.
We build houses the same way we did 50 years ago. The whole sector is structurally not fit for purpose. The buyer should not have to subsidise that inefficiency.A rational business person would say lets build property and sell it for a huge profit (as people assume supernormal profits exist in the market). I believe that this is not the case and that with what I consider overly burdensome regulations costs are increased simply because of that.
Why? Try 40% of the building cost is taxes and levies, a legacy of corruption and incompetence in the construction and banking sector and 30 years of mind boggling incompetence by the State.