A serious question for the Bears....

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

We live a good life and spend a lot of time with our child who is also able to learn more social skills at nursery for 3 days than he ever could at home (EG sharing, peer interaction etc.)
So I fail to see the point that the family unit is broken if some one does a part time job.
Some women actually want to feel they have a life and are not just secluded from the rest of the world after child birth.
We are social creatures, social interaction is the main point, so unless you want us to go back to having 9 children each and women are just baby machines I fail to see your point.
Times have changed, move on, the world will with or without you.

Just how far can you take my post out of context?

Thats a pretty good effort.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Really2 wrote: »

We are social creatures, social interaction is the main point, so unless you want us to go back to having 9 children each and women are just baby machines I fail to see your point.
Times have changed, move on, the world will with or without you.

Silly bull, women are just for breeding, dontchaknow.....

No career needed, just stay at home and breed whilst their housing bear goes to work.

How very 1950's of them.......

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just how far can you take my post out of context?

Thats a pretty good effort.

Oh look, a shiny thing.....:rolleyes:

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

We have a child my wife had the first year off and as gone back three days. We both home by 5:30pm.
You cope Graham that is life.
Children are not the massive drain on resources like many say. (in fact we are better off as we go for less nights out now)
soon the little one will qualify for the free child care places.

We live a good life and spend a lot of time with our child who is also able to learn more social skills at nursery for 3 days than he ever could at home (EG sharing, peer interaction etc.)
So I fail to see the point that the family unit is broken if some one does a part time job.
Some women actually want to feel they have a life and are not just secluded from the rest of the world after child birth.
We are social creatures, social interaction is the main point, so unless you want us to go back to having 9 children each and women are just baby machines I fail to see your point.
Times have changed, move on, the world will with or without you.

some one explain to Graham that your salary in Year 1 of your mortgage is going to be less than in Year5 , Year 10, Year 15 etc so your affordability gets better :rolleyes:

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just how far can you take my post out of context?

Thats a pretty good effort.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And many couples have kids.

Therefore you are back to basically a singleton wage.

What happens then?

I answered your very, very, simplistic point Graham.

Most budget for their wife to be off a year and then go back part time until children are older! (you do usualy plan having a child, then you have nearly 9 months to sort things out:))

Can you explain how they are back to one wage? I expect you to cross referance that to the average family income and average wage.
If you can prove that the average family income is virtually the same as the average single wage I will be very, very, surprised.

System

Plus you get maternity leave for that period.

Other than all those points, yeah, single wage again.

the_ash_and_the_oak

think graham has wrong end of stick here tbf. houses have been bought on dual wage for a long time, this was not a contributory factor to the bubble - pretty sure it was the rise of the single waged buyer and new first rung property (studio/1bed apt) that had more to do with inflating prices over the last decade. dont really think this kind of buyer (or property) existed in significant number prior to the bubble imo

purch

think graham has wrong end of stick here

Graham ???

Never :eek:

Really2

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

think graham has wrong end of stick here tbf. houses have been bought on dual wage for a long time,

Agree, I think some have said started to become more preverlent from around the 70's onward.

julieq

Entertainer wrote: »

How would he have paid off a quarter of his mortgage when rental yields have been similar to mortgage interest in most parts of the country, outside of the regions, for the last six years?

If he had bought he'd be 6 years into paying off a 25 year term mortgage. It's nothing to do with rental yields, it's about the argument that paying off your own mortgage is financially more efficient than paying the same amount to a landlord over the same period.

As to the singleton thing, it's really not a question of whether that's good or bad, it's what happens unless you restrict mortgages to one salary only which isn't going to happen. You only fix that by rejigging the supply and demand, i.e. by reducing the population or building a lot more houses.