One in five rule out home ownership, study shows

or alternatively 80% of people rule in home ownership … -1.2643884

One of the greatest sporting injustices of all time.

See Homeownership and Rental: What Road is Ireland On? No. 140 December 2014 … Rental.pdf and Norris, M. (2013), Varieties of Home Ownership: Ireland’s Transition from a Socialised to a Marketised Policy Regime, Geary WP2013/06, April, Dublin: University College Dublin.

                          1946      1961      1971      1981      1991      2002      2006      2011
Owner-Occupied            52.6      59.8      70.8      74.7        80      79.8      77.2      70.8
Private Renting           26.1      17.2      10.9      10.1       8.1      11.4        11      18.8
Social Renting            16.5      18.4      15.9      12.5       9.8       7.1      10.3       8.9
Other                      4.7       4.6       2.4       2.6       2.1       1.7       1.5       1.6

So. in other words, current long-term home ownership aspirations match historical averages.

Maybe the headline should be Daft and 123 looking for free publicity with a cheap, quick and fairly meaningless pseudo study and achieve their objective.

The move to increased home ownership that started in the mid 1940s had significant and positive social impacts on Ireland.

80% is a reasonable ceiling.

Was that because you needed to start at the 10 metre line as a first time competitor but you could never quite made it to 10 metres before the race started?

Those are interesting stats, but I suspect that more revealing stat might be the age profile of owners. There was a time when someone coming out of college into a good job could reasonably expect to own a home in a decent area within a year or so - that’s not even close to being possible now (without a massive leg up from the parents, at least).

On the flip side, there can’t be many in the 40-60 age bracket now who aren’t owner-occupiers, whereas historically I’d guess there were quite a few.

The averages hide massive age-based discrimination.

I think this is a very important point. Would be great if some stat boffins on here could find those figures because this is the real crux of the problem, older generations have screwed it up for the younger ones.

That would have been a time when there was a tiny middle class and a much larger lower class of poorly paid manual workers and unemployed. Apart from public sector trade unions no one really wants to return to those days. … sisnow.pdf

We’d only 13,800 full time students aged 20-24 in 1971, up to 62,000 in 1996. Somewhere closer to 100k now I’d guess. Someone qualifying in the 70’s didn’t have as much competition for the same housing.

But unless they want to live in circumstances which existed a couple generations ago there’s not much for today’s generation to feel too envious about.

Aspirations are the only thing matching previous decades.

And the latest outlook is seriously bleak for potential homeowners.

Yes - these are gross statistics. But so is the very gross anti-statistic from Daft. I quoted these to counter the fairly meaningless Daft and 123 so-called survey results. This is the second tendentious Daft survey this week.

Yes, you are right. Within these numbers, there is a number of concealed trends that would merit further analysis:

  • Demographic changes relating to changes in the age of first residential property purchasers

  • Demographic changes relating to large scale immigration of long-term renters

I was surprised the Daft/123 number was 80% given the large number of long-term renters. The survey may not be representative.

There is so much dogmatic nonsense written and spoken about residential property in Ireland that is not supported by any information or analysis.

There are too many short-term Government interferences in the market that cause quite negative and damaging consequences.

When they fail to find a single participant who wasn’t doping your name could still be in the hat! 8DD

Re: 20% of Irish adults – they are also prevented from being among the 100,000 mortgage holders up to their eyeballs in debt they can’t afford.

Some people may be able to buy their own home but:

What and where can they now buy compared to previous years?

Well, payment of the debt is optional, and there will be no meaningful consequences if you take a five year break from making a payment. (Your credit rating being damaged by the missed payment is a micro-consequence in comparison to living for free in a gaff while others pay horrible rent).

I don’t rule out home ownership, I’m not too far from ruling out living in Ireland, long term. I can buy a flat outright in a town I know well on the continent where the weather is lovely and the people even lovelier. I’m definitely staying around while my parents are alive, and I’m saving up for the flat. Although if the next crash is half as bad as 2009, I may be taking the parents with me to the new town. Because the health system there is solid as a rock, and the HSE is nearly collapsing now while it’s swimming in money. Imagine how lethal the hospitals will become if we have three years of mild recession. It wouldn’t take a full re-run of 2009 to collapse the HSE. I bet a much milder crash would do for it.

I really reckon that renting while on a pension would be a bad financial scenario

Variable and most often rising living costs on a fixed low income.

A rising tide lifts all boats and then eventually comes over the gunwales of those on short ropes and sinks them.

This is the best argument for buying, that it locks living costs in time for when an income freezes.

Is this not therefore a reason why you’d want your living costs to be equally predictable? If you’re on a fixed income, then either a fixed rent for your lifetime, or else reasonably predictable service costs alone (property tax, uninsured maintenance) would be good. Volatile costs and a fixed income are not good, particularly when the one thing you can predict about your income is that it’s likely to be quite low, since there is very good evidence that employers are reluctant to recruit older people and you’d have limited opportunities for topping up.
Obviously, fixed living costs and a variable income isn’t a great combination either, unless those costs are fixed at a low level. Nevertheless; young, easily employable people in Ireland have the option of simply doing a runner to where their skills are in greater demand and leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab for the unpaid mortgage.
The same reluctance I mentioned above, to employ older people, works against pensioners doing the same. I know that there are countries where older people can get jobs more easily, such as Japan, where people work well into years where westerners would all be retired, but there the prejudice is against origin, rather than age. It’s not easy to work in Japan as a foreigner at all and I certainly wouldn’t rate the chances of a newly arrived foreign senior very well.

Not in the same way. That’s why I mentioned Japan as a counterexample. Try job hunting in Ireland when you’re 75, 65, or even 55. You’ll be lucky even to get as far as being shown the door, no matter how well trained, educated, experienced or motivated you are. If you’re young, you can jump jobs. If you’re old, you won’t get a job, even if you’re capable of doing it.

It’s more subtle than that. A lot more 25-year olds are in education so the denominator (employed+unemployed) is lower.

The skills mix also matters. Low-skilled at 55 is a lot worse than low-skilled at 25. There is not much more than security work and taxiing. Self-employment at 55 if you have marketable skills is highly (and increasingly) possible.

25 year olds have neither skills nor experience (yet), so they’re less objectively employable. 55 year olds have both, but still can’t find jobs if they’re laid off, despite being better qualified than the 25 year olds with whom they’re competing.

If you’re unemployed at 25, you’re likely to be employed at 30. If you’re unemployed at 55, you’re on the scrapheap and still have 10 years to wait for your (fixed) pension.

They have fewer useful skills and less experience, but employers don’t care about that. They are objectively less useful, but socially more acceptable.

To simplify: when you’re 25, the only way is up; when you’re 55, the only way is down. That’s at least as much a hard economic perspective as an emotional one.

Having 50 to 55 year olds on the scrap heap is an acceptable unwritten HR policy, as the average age of a ftb is now 33, and they all take out 20 year mortgages, right? :unamused:

More clusterfuck economic dogma, universally met without challenge.