Housing in Ireland: A broken system.

joe sod said:
BAM also building the intel fab34 facility, a 17billion investment, it dwarfs the national children's hospital, biggest private investment in history of state Therefore blaming everything on private contractors which varadker tried to do and then backed off when bam threatened to pull out doesn't wash. Alot of delays in intel construction and housing were caused by government shutting down the whole construction industry during covid, which nobody else did to that extent. The problems with children's hospital can be layer at state own tendering and procurement policies
Click to expand...
It's also worth noting that the 17 billion Intel Fab 34 investment is consuming a considerable amount of the available construction labour. I appreciate that it isn't the same as building houses but there is a lot of labour tied up on the job that would otherwise be building other things. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just pointing it out. Of course the construction sector is grossly inefficient and that labour intensity shouldn't be necessary but that's a different discussion.
 
Ajax123 said:
The government isn't building the new children's hospital. BAM is after a tender. Same as with public housing the government is simply purchasing it from the private market. In fact it's actually a great example of how relying on the private market for everything isn't a panacea.

The difference being most people aren't in the market for a children's hospital themselves. They are however in the market for the houses the government is competing against them to buy/lease.

I think when people say the government should be building something, they mean a state or semi state company should be building it.
Click to expand...
It goes deeper than the above. We did indeed build public housing but the State refuses to deal with anti social issues, non payment of rent etc. The is only a recent new (last 15 yrs or so).

I grew up in an Ireland of the 70's & 80's were welfare, social housing etc where hard to come by and were respected etc. (There were some who did not but the vast majority did).

It's easy to spend someone else's money (the taxpayer, corporation tax etc) with no consequences.

Unless we as a society actually shift our mindset nothing is going to change. Eventually we will be forced to change when the money runs out.
 
Purple said:
That disparity is driven by the inflation of Capital (wealth) relative to wages. Those who own Capital can buy more capital (houses), those who don't can't. There's a reason we've seen a massive increase in tax receipts from capital intensive industries (Corporation tax) relative to income taxes, despite having very high marginal income taxes. The State then uses those tax receipts to bridge the gap between earned income and capital values, or rents on capital. Those who rely on wages only are disadvantaged. That leads to a bigger State that needs to intervene more and more to provide people with what they used to be able to provide for themselves. That leads to a kind of poverty trap.
It's not just houses that have inflated, it's all capital items. Look at the stock market gains over the last 2 decades. You now have to earn way more to buy a house, but the same can be said for most Stocks. That's the reason for the issue you are highlighting. The only solution is to close the gap between wages and Capital values.
Click to expand...
Or promote education. Most of the disadvantaged without ‘capital’ are heavily reliant on social welfare.
 
Silversurfer said:
Or promote education. Most of the disadvantaged without ‘capital’ are heavily reliant on social welfare.
Click to expand...
The inventive to get a higher education is falling. You can spend years getting educated to then spend years working full time with still little hope of owning "capital". As this whole thread is discussing, the incentive to be "middle class" is falling. As some of my examples show, after housing is accounted for, you'd often be in a similar money situation regardless.
 
Last edited:
Ajax123 said:
The inventive to get a higher education is falling. You can spend years getting educated to then spend years working full time with still little hope of owning "capital". As this whole thread is discussing, the incentive to be "middle class" is dying. As some of my examples show, after housing is accounted for, you'd often be in a similar money situation regardless.
Click to expand...
Education and aspirations to be middle class are not necessarily mutual in my experience. An address does not make one middle class either. In The Journal on Sundays a interesting and current observation on income, savings and home ownership is run called Money Diaries. It is worth reading as those who are well educated are in good jobs with homes, savings, pensions and have share options.
 
Silversurfer said:
Or promote education. Most of the disadvantaged without ‘capital’ are heavily reliant on social welfare.
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with education. Those without capital have to work more than twice as hard as I did to gain the same capital I have since their labour is worth half as much as mine relative to capital as was 30 years ago when I started working and marginal tax rates are much higher now so they get to keep less of what they do earn. This is all about the "haves", which is older people, and the "have nots", which is younger people who won't inherit or be gifted capital, and what is becoming a permanent gap between the two. Housing is just the most visible symptom of the problem.
 
Silversurfer said:
Education and aspirations to be middle class are not necessarily mutual in my experience. An address does not make one middle class either. In The Journal on Sundays a interesting and current observation on income, savings and home ownership is run called Money Diaries. It is worth reading as those who are well educated are in good jobs with homes, savings, pensions and have share options.
Click to expand...
So someone from a socially deprived area who grow up in a council house but have a degree and work hard in their public sector job will find it just as easy to buy a house and become part of the property owning middle class as their equivalent 30 years ago. Is that what you are saying?
 
Ajax123 said:
The inventive to get a higher education is falling. You can spend years getting educated to then spend years working full time with still little hope of owning "capital". As this whole thread is discussing, the incentive to be "middle class" is falling. As some of my examples show, after housing is accounted for, you'd often be in a similar money situation regardless.
Click to expand...
Exactly. What was the middle class is becoming renters and reliant on State supports for housing. That's not good for society or democracy.
 
Purple said:
So someone from a socially deprived area who grow up in a council house but have a degree and work hard in their public sector job will find it just as easy to buy a house and become part of the property owning middle class as their equivalent 30 years ago. Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...
Where you come from does not dictate your future. Working in the Public Sector is a job for life. The grade you have depends on your education. An example would be an economics degree for the Dept of Finance. A clerical officer will find it difficult to buy in Dublin but has the luxury of a transfer to other parts of the country. Nearly all of the people who I know aged 30+ have bought homes. Could you define Middle Class?
 
I think we are going off on tangents here.

30+ years ago there was an adequate supply of social housing. Low cost loans, such as those from the Housing Finance Agency were available for those with income under specific levels.

That meant that there was less competition for private housing, which kept housing costs under control.

Many people who started in local authority homes later bought private housing.

Ireland followed the UK model and effectively stopped building local authority homes even though there was a growing need due to population increase.

We have to get back to building local authority homes.

They don't have to be built as they were in the past.

Apprenticeships can be created for trades, architects and environmental specialists can be brought in at the beginning to achieve good environments, building laws can be amended and anti-social rules can be strictly enforced.

We don't need more money, we need ambition.
 
Sophrosyne said:
We have to get back to building local authority homes.

They don't have to be built as they were in the past.
Click to expand...
Modern rises in living standards have meant that the economics of providing heavily-subsidised lifetime housing to a substantial proportion of a national population have become totally unworkable.
 
Purple said:
It had nothing to do with education. Those without capital have to work more than twice as hard as I did to gain the same capital I have since their labour is worth half as much as mine relative to capital as was 30 years ago when I started working and marginal tax rates are much higher now so they get to keep less of what they do earn. This is all about the "haves", which is older people, and the "have nots", which is younger people who won't inherit or be gifted capital, and what is becoming a permanent gap between the two. Housing is just the most visible symptom of the problem.
Click to expand...
Those living in Social Houses will be the haves in a few years time. What then?
 
T McGibney said:
Modern rises in living standards have meant that the economics of providing heavily-subsidised lifetime housing to a substantial proportion of a national population have become totally unworkable.
Click to expand...
The way I see it is that the difficulties now are by no means greater than they were in the past when people were moved from unsanitary decaying tenements into "modern" suburban homes.

Then we were a poor country, but rose to the challenge.

Now we are rich. As mentioned, we need ambition, ways and means rather than grinding mediocrity.
 
Sophrosyne said:
The way I see it is that the difficulties now are by no means greater than they were in the past when people were moved from unsanitary decaying tenements into "modern" suburban homes.
Click to expand...
Those homes were built using what we would now term slave labour.

And public education and health service provision was sacrificed to pay for it. That's why we remained poor for so long, for long periods failing to sustain half the people born here since independence.

Today, lifetime provision of public housing at or near zero personal cost is a benefit akin to winning the Lotto.
 
Silversurfer said:
Where you come from does not dictate your future. Working in the Public Sector is a job for life. The grade you have depends on your education. An example would be an economics degree for the Dept of Finance. A clerical officer will find it difficult to buy in Dublin but has the luxury of a transfer to other parts of the country. Nearly all of the people who I know aged 30+ have bought homes. Could you define Middle Class?
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand the basic issue that labour is worth far less relative to capital than it was 30 years ago and so inherited wealth is becoming more and more important when determining the economic position of people in society.

Someone can enter the workforce at 23 and work and save for 20 years and end up with less than someone else who happens to inherit their parents house. That just didn't happen 30 years ago because marginal tax rates were lower and labour was far more valuable relative to capital. No amount of education is going to change that.

The "I worked hard all my life" brigade who seem to think that they actually earned their wealth rather than just being the beneficiaries of very high capital price inflation. They are the people who need to be educated.

I'm one of the people who is on the right side of that boom economically but I know I didn't earn that wealth, even though I've worked hard all my life, and I don't think it's right that someone starting out in life now who does the same as me and earns the same income as I have will never end up with the wealth I have.
 
T McGibney said:
Modern rises in living standards have meant that the economics of providing heavily-subsidised lifetime housing to a substantial proportion of a national population have become totally unworkable.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you build them. Look at the some of the part 8 local authority developments were they are purpose built (private tender) social and affordable purchase homes. They are designed with cost effectiveness in mind and generally cost less. €200k to €400k in today's post inflation prices. Some were sub 200k pre 2020, for example a development in Ballymun which geographically is a prime location in terms of proximity to the city centre.

Part V shows its flaws here. Take the Marianella "luxury" apartments for example. Or any of the numerous high end or "luxury" branded house/apartment developments. These homes can cost up to €1 million and with recent funding increases and housing pressures the council is compelled to pay up for 10% of the homes instead of taking land or property elsewhere etc. How is this in any way good value for public tax funds? Incredibly lucky for housing list tenants selected for them though.

I would agree that I think ambition has a strong element here. If a state or semi state construction company took on large scale building in one large period, perhaps invested in factory building elements of the homes off site, surely they would somewhat benefit from economies of scale. Surely also allowing higher incomes in public homes will boost the rental income received. So would adjusting rent up from unusually low 10% rents in some local authorities. Again returning to Vienna, the quality of housing is considered good there and yes they do have the usual financial concerns but somehow they are still managing to keep going with building.
 
Last edited:
T McGibney said:
Modern rises in living standards have meant that the economics of providing heavily-subsidised lifetime housing to a substantial proportion of a national population have become totally unworkable.
Click to expand...
Also with large migration inflows into Ireland and other European countries, not a largely static population with relatively small internal population flows like we used to have in 70s and 80s, providing social housing like beforehand is no longer sustainable. For example the bar for an Irish immigrant to Australia or Canada to get social housing is very high, you can't get into Australia as a permanent resident unless you already have a skill that commands high income therefore automatically disqualified from social housing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top