A change in sentiment

kingkano

carolt wrote: »

Congratulations, IveSeenTheLight! :beer:

Hopefully, you may then be able to appreciate in practice neverdespairgirl's point that once you have kids, 3.5 times joint earnings is rarely feasible! There IS a reason why the traditional multiple was never 3.5 times joint earnings but 3.5 X single, 3 X single + 1 times second income, or 2.5/2.75X joint earnings.

Sadly the number of DINKs is massively on the increase IMHO. A quick straw poll of friends reveals about 50% of the married ones have no plans for children (they are all between 28 and 36). So they have quite a high disposable income. Even if you drop this to 10% or 20% it must have a massive effect on the housing market??

Whereas previously generations like the baby boomers obviously were very contrary to this. I'd say its a quite recent for so many women to be working and carry on working after having children..?

mewbie_2

kingkano wrote: »

DINKs on increase..50% of married no plans for children... high disposable income... massive effect on housing market??

Does your post mean..
1. these people can afford to keep the property boom going all by themselves?
2. they won't need family sized houses?
3. there will be less future generations to prop up the market?
4. they can't afford to have children?

neverdespairgirl

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

9 :eek: How the hell did they reproduce?

Average life expectancy at birth can be significantly affected by infant mortality.

Even when life expectancy was 35-ish, in about 1300AD, if you made it past the age of 5, you were heading for more than 40.

lostinrates

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I fully agree and something that I will know in the near future having recently received good news
:T :T :T
.

Congratulations!:beer: :beer:

geoffky

busydaffodil1 wrote: »

Such is life. Riots? I doubt. The great British public lie down and take it all.
Fuel prices - we accept, other countries hold huge protest marches & strikes.
Immigration - we accept all, allow them to have their own TV programmes (Sharia TV) and build churches. Other countries tell them its their way or the highway.
Council Tax - we moan but do nothing
inflation - we moan but do nothing

Many of the posts on the www are Brits being verbal. We tend to talk the talk but fail to walk the walk.

IF YOU READ OUR HISTORY I AM AFRAID YOU ARE VERY WRONG.
PEOPLE OVER THE LAST 200 YEARS HAVE USED CIVIL DISORDER TO GAIN MOST THINGS WE HAVE TODAY.STARTING FROM THE TODPUDDLE MARTYRS..

poppy10_2

geoffky wrote: »

IF YOU READ OUR HISTORY I AM AFRAID YOU ARE VERY WRONG.
PEOPLE OVER THE LAST 200 YEARS HAVE USED CIVIL DISORDER TO GAIN MOST THINGS WE HAVE TODAY.STARTING FROM THE TODPUDDLE MARTYRS..

Sadly, these days the closest most people get to civil disobedience is using all capital letters on internet forums.

mewbie_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I guess the difference between us may be that I choose to ensure that we were financially secure before starting a family while you enjoyed being a parent earlier in life.

I'll just let that comment speak for itself...

Gorgeous_George

Whatever prices do, most people who choose to buy will own their own home come retirement.

That was why I bought in 1985. I certainly had no expectation that prices would rise. I don't know if renting was an option back then, I didn't look. Even at the tender age of 22, with my apprenticeship behind me, I did not want to live in someone else's house.

Je ne suis pas un cuckoo.

I've been lucky I guess. Just like anybody else who has dared to buy their own home with a mortgage that they could afford.

There will be some who bought at the most recent peak who will have 5, 10 or 25 years fixed rates and who will own their own home one day. There will be others who rent and save a massive deposit ready to jump in when the waters are calmer. And there are some who will rent forever - because that is what they choose to do.

Vive la differance.

GG

Gangstabird

I had to read that twice. Was Gordon Brown the shadow chancellor then.....really. So really he should know better. Bl((dy hell.

kingkano

mewbie wrote: »

Does your post mean..
1. these people can afford to keep the property boom going all by themselves?
2. they won't need family sized houses?
3. there will be less future generations to prop up the market?
4. they can't afford to have children?

I've no idea of the implications on this scale. Why on earth you drew these conclusions from my post I can't really fathom (since I did quote the particular reason I was posting my information).

I CAN say they aren't doing it for financial reasons. Some don't want to bring children into the world as it stands. A couple don't want the responsibility. Only 1 couple I know don't want them for financial reasons but I didn't include them in my count. (because really they DO want them - but only if their situation changes )

I was only mentioning it because I don't think you can say houses will go back to 3x single income. Due to the high number of double incomes that won't ever reduce down to one. I personally believe these people must have had quite a bearing on property going up to the prices it has. NO, I'm not saying they drove a boom all by themselves.

Still can't quite see things from your narrow-minded perspective I'm afraid....