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

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Thinking about it, I still don't really understand how anyone can separate children from people generally, as though children are somehow like bus tickets, as per your example. Children are people - saying you'd hate to have children to me = I hate other people.

Or if not, what am I missing here?

With children there is a personal responsibilty not present with other adults, and the impact that has on life.

For me, I can't really ''get'', for example, how some people don't like animals and recognise their ''people'' ness, but I do get, for the same reasons as children, why many people would choose not to own any.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

Thinking about it, I still don't really understand how anyone can separate children from people generally, as though children are somehow like bus tickets, as per your example.

Apologies for not being clear, but I wasn't separating children from people and I wasn't comparing children to bus tickets. I was comparing someone's interest in bus tickets with potentially someone's interest in (not) having children.

There are some crazy people out there (myself included) that just don't want to have kids. They're cool and everything, I just don't really have a desire to have one.

carolt wrote: »

Children are people - saying you'd hate to have children to me = I hate other people.

I think that's a very strange perspective where you've linked together two unrelated aspects.

I don't feel that I want to have children but this certainly doesn't mean that I hate other people. I have friends with children and I like hanging out with them. Just don't particulary want my own.

Cleaver

treliac wrote: »

Perhaps it's the constant demands, tiredness, self-sacrifice and drain on the pocket that comes with having children and 'doing the job' properly, that puts off those who aren't sufficiently motivated.

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

I'm going to make a comment that's loosely related to this comment, but it's not a direct response to you treliac!

As a married guy with no kids and no real plans to have kids, I get a bit sick of being asked when I'm having kids and then the theories as to why I'm not having kids. The theories seem to mainly include:

• That I'm somehow not mature enough.
• That I'm somehow missing just how damn magical these kids can be.
• That I'm scared of the commitment of having a kid.
• That I'm a materialistic individual who doesn't want to spend money on kids.
• That I'd prefer to have holidays (actually, that one has an ounce of truth...).
• That my wife or myself are physically incapable.
• That I'm making some sort of statement about the state of the modern world and that I don't want to bring a child in to it.
• That me and the wife are both too career driven.

Very rarely does someone accept that both of us just don't really fancy having kids and it doesn't really go any deeper than that.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

increased demand (population increase and increased affluence)

carolt wrote: »

I'm sure Hamish not having kids explains A LOT. I suppose if I didn't, and was never planning to, then I might

(a) have time to post endlessly on here

Carolt: Average posts 3.42 per day

HAMISH_MCTAVISH: Average posts 5.86 per day

Gosh Carol.... Not having kids allows me to make an additional 2.4 posts per day.

Wow.... What a time saving that is.:rolleyes: And an even stranger definition of "endless".

(b) value money above all else.

I don't value money above all else.

But I do work hard for my money, and so don't like being taxed to death to support those who hardly work.

I know you may find this a strange concept, but there are plenty of people out there who believe that living in a benefits state, with government hand-outs to the lazy and wealth redistribution on a massive scale is a very bad thing.

After all, not all of us think getting knocked up and taking hand-outs from the government is an acceptable way to live life....:rolleyes:

And (c) do things like rubbish climate change just for the hell of it.

.

:rotfl:

Oh, I don't need to do that.

The leading scientists in the field have just been caught admitting they used "tricks" to manipulate the data, and can't explain the fact that the earth has been cooling for the last decade.

carolt

increased availability of credit

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I know you may find this a strange concept, but there are plenty of people out there who believe that living in a benefits state, with government hand-outs to the lazy and wealth redistribution on a massive scale is a very bad thing.

After all, not all of us think getting knocked up and taking hand-outs from the government is an acceptable way to live life....:rolleyes:

Look at that...we agree.

See the thread on the family living in the £1600/week house on benefits.

That's exactly the point I make, too.

tomstickland

increased availability of credit

increased availability of credit

82% say this (including me).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

increased demand (population increase and increased affluence)

carolt wrote: »

Look at that...we agree.

See the thread on the family living in the £1600/week house on benefits.

That's exactly the point I make, too.

Ummm, not quite.

You disagree with a limited and specific case of benefits because you think in this case they ramp up rents and therefore house prices.

I disagree with benefits because I think forced wealth redistribution removes the incentive for society to work hard, and can only lead to a relentless march towards mediocrity.

Benefits, as a short term safety net, are fine. Make them quite generous if you like, but strictly limit them to 3 or 4 years per lifetime. The safety net beyond that should be no more than a dormitory bed and a canteen, with an attached job centre.

Benefits have become a lifestyle choice, which is neither acceptable nor sustainable.

carolt

increased availability of credit

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ummm, not quite.

You disagree with a limited and specific case of benefits because you think in this case they ramp up rents and therefore house prices.

I disagree with benefits because I think forced wealth redistribution removes the incentive for society to work hard, and can only lead to a relentless march towards mediocrity.

Benefits, as a short term safety net, are fine. Make them quite generous if you like, but strictly limit them to 3 or 4 years per lifetime. The safety net beyond that should be no more than a dormitory bed and a canteen, with an attached job centre.

Benefits have become a lifestyle choice, which is neither acceptable nor sustainable.

No, I agree with that and all.

Primrose

People wanting to keep up with the Joneses!

mdj1

Simple, Illegal Liar Loans and the government not doing anything about it when they could, but then why would they they were creaming it in on the stamp duty.

This country has one of the biggest levels of personal debt and national debt in the world, and it's not going to change any time soon.