What was the main driver of the 300%+ house price rise from the mid 80s to mid 00s

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Not true, though Really - you can select schools by sending your kids to one in a nice middle-class catchment with no council estates around.

Simple.

Depends completely on subscription. Any child could get in from the area if not over subscribed.
Some have to take some less fortunate children in, we have one of the top secondary schools in the country in our county and you get in on application and achievement no one gets into that school on catchment area
I don't agree middle class means nice.
Do you really see council estate children as not worthy of the same education?

Personally I live in an ownership area but would have no problem with council estate children being in the same school.
Children should not be segregated by money, It's beging to sound like financial apartheid.:eek:

treliac

increased availability of credit

carolt wrote: »

We're not talking about anyone being kept by anyone. We're talking about 2 incomes being required to buy a reasonable property these days. That impacts on men as much as women. And even more on the children.

If 1 mortgage (in my opinion it should be that of the higher earner only, of either gender) only were admissable for mortgage purposes, as used to be the case, as it was when my parents bought; or 1 income plus a fraction of the second income (as was the case a decade ago), then house prices would not have reached the levels they did, and everyone - men AND women - could achieve a better life-work balance.

That would in no way deny those parents who wish to work the chance to do so - but it would allow for those (the majority, in my experience) who wish to spend more of those precious early years with their children, the opportunity to do so.

Hear hear. It's one of the cruellest myths imposed on women in recent years - that they can 'have it all' - a wonderful life in which they can follow a career on an equal footing with men, whilst bringing up a family and enjoying 'quality time' (the biggest con of all!) with the children.

As a result everyone's lost out. We've got a rocketing separation/divorce rate, exhausted, stressed women and depressed and unhappy children who have to endure second rate upbringing with people who don't have any real interest in them and, as they get older, empty houses to return to or temptation to get into trouble on the streets.

I'd argue that rarely have mothers felt they have any real choice in whether to work or not, most have to compromise and exhaust themselves in the process and, except for a few high fliers, they find the glass ceiling an obstacle they can't get over. In most families, where there is a father-figure, the male pursues his career unimpeded by childcare pressures; these invariably fall to mothers. The few who don't really need the cash and can work a few part-time hours to suit themselves are probably not career driven anyway and if they can make suitable arrangements for their children a few hours a week can be a nice diversion. But that is not reality for most.

I'd disagree vehemently with anyone who claims women have achieved equality for themselves, stability for their families or, indeed, peace of mind or much to be pleased about while they battle to balance the love, care and commitment involved in bringing up a family with the pressures of maintaining a career.

ukcarper

Really2 wrote: »

Actually you did not need to have a partner or children to get a council house back then. It depended entirely on the housing list.

Yes but you were allocated points depending on your circumstances and being on the list did not guarantee you a property.

Really2

treliac wrote: »

Hear hear. It's one of the cruellest myths imposed on women in recent years - that they can 'have it all' -

I would argue you can have a career, then children, then possibly a career again after they go to school.

I don't think it was imposed, it was brought into. Would women want all those with careers to not have them any more so men could be paid more to provide for a family.

To me equality means equal rights, unfortunatly for mothers the equal rights to pay and jobs as been the cause of this, I really do not think it was enforced put perhaps in hindsight a path women wished equality had not wondered down after having children.

I agree it is not the best for family's but compleatly unavoidable because for every mother there is a woman with a job and no children or after bringing up children saying why should I suffer.

Difficult one and not one I could judge which is right or wrong.
Perhaps women can not achive equality with each other? (EG careers vs mom's)

ThrowingStonesAtYou

increased availability of credit

There are a number of factors, but by far the largest is the increased availability and reduced cost of credit. If the banks are having to start funding mortgages from retail deposits I'd guess prices are going to drop a good 30% from where we are now. Houses seem to have been around the £80k mark (in real terms) for decades and even the late 80's boom (or was it early 90's, I don't remember) prices maxed out at about £115k. The population hasn't increased significantly since then so the supply/demand argument doesn't stack up in my opinion.

Really2

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes but you were allocated points depending on your circumstances and being on the list did not guarantee you a property.

It did if there were more property's available than people on the waiting list.

Mr.Brown_4

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

by far the largest is the increased availability and reduced cost of credit...

I think that is part of the story. Up to about 2004 maybe. The rest of the real bubble stuff was people buying into the dream that 20% HPI was here to stay. A win win bet to make more money than you could feasibly save in a lifetime. The FTB cast aside as equity rich owners could buy one, two, three houses or flats (InsideTrack oh my sainted aunt) and make a quick profit.

IMO houses were over priced in 2001. The rest is bubble pure and simple.

I believe the credit crunch caused the house crash argument is misleading. It was already a bubble. It had to crash sometime. And it ain't over yet.

ukcarper

Really2 wrote: »

It did if there were more property's available than people on the waiting list.

How often did that happen not very often where I lived

Really2

ukcarper wrote: »

How often did that happen not very often where I lived

So was there a really big housing shortage in the 70's because I am fairly sure ownership was less, you could not get a council accomodation (according to yourself) and private rental was less.

Where did single people live considered most left home by 20?

I am fairly sure a lot of towns expanded in the 60/70's to attract workers. That was council and private housing. There are examples in a lot of towns across the UK.

I am not having a go but your are making the 70's sound an impossible place if you were not with child or already owning.

treliac

increased availability of credit

Really2 wrote: »

I would argue you can have a career, then children, then possibly a career again after they go to school.

A job rather than a career ..... rarely will a career permit a lengthy break without jeopardising prospects.

Difficult one and not one I could judge which is right or wrong.
Perhaps women can not achive equality with each other? (EG careers vs mom's)

I think you're correct - women can't have it all ..... but they've been forced into trying, to meet today's housing costs and conned into believing they should be able / it's their right to have it all!

.....................................