We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What was the main driver of the 300%+ house price rise from the mid 80s to mid 00s
Comments
-
Thrugelmir wrote: »Reduce unemployment at a stroke as well.
Why revolution. Evolution is far less painful!
There are certain towns & cities in the Uk where instead of shouting "revolution, revolution", the inhabitants shout "evolution, evolution".
You can normally tell by the grooves in the pavement, where their knuckles drag as they walk around. That & their lack of thumbs.;)It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
The only thing I would add is that now peoples expectations are a lot higher holidays abroad big TVs new bathrooms kitchens etc.
Correct, people would bring up a family of 2 adults and 2-3 children in a 2 bed house back then.
Would they now? or would they want/expect more?
Housing is more expensive no doubt, but compared to 40 years ago I bet the average family after all expenses (Mortgage, food, clothes etc) is not better or worse off.
could the average family afford 2 cars and a mortgage 40 years ago?
We just enjoy a better standard of living overall. We still all just work to live, not live to work.:)0 -
Err women work because they want to earn money.
Do you expect women to wait for men to sweep them of there feet and start a family at just after school age.
Most work because they want too. I don't know any Moms who put a house before family, or fathers for that matter.
If you knock out equal rights you can go back to the 30's/ 40's if you want.:eek:
But what about single women then?
They would be without work or never have any chance of a decent wage and excluding from owning and "left on the Shelf" (as they used to say)
To make out women have to work to service a mortgage is wrong in my eyes (they work before a mortgage so it can't be true).
Equal rights are a good thing and gave equal rights for all, but it did make two people more of a purchasing force than a single person (male or female)
How many woman carry on working after they have children because they can't afford to give up work0 -
How many woman carry on working after they have children because they can't afford to give up work
Do you know (as far as I know there are no facts to support either view point)?
Do working women not pay for child care?
My wife works part time because she wants to.
She used to work full time, had a year off and went back part time. We could cope without her working.
Like i said if it was a house or children I know what would win so unless you have a good statistic of how many women put owning a house above having/looking after children what you are trying to make is to suit your viewpoint nothing else.
Women work and in a free society have every right to do so.
They also have the right to include their wages in a mortgage application. 0 -
-
zygurat789 wrote: »People want houses so the demand is always there, however, as we have seen recently, there has not been the credit available to finance this demand so prices fell. Therefore credit is the reason for the increase.
In bold you are describing desire.
Demand is the desire and the ability (credit) to purchase:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
increased availability of creditIt is a culture shift I but are more women working because of bigger mortgages or are mortgages bigger because more women work.
It is both, Catch-22, chicken and egg, or whatever it should be called.
Plenty of women work simply because they feel they have to, in order to provide everything their family wants/needs.
Plenty of women work because they enjoy it, build a career etc.
Through the decades, as another 2% of women joined the full-time working bandwagon, the following year another 2% would feel the need to enhance their household income, so started/extended working hours. As mortgages expanded to 3x joint multiple etc, more so...
Then that extra 2% of disposable income filters through into mortgages, as you have to get close to the best school, etc etc, and another 2% decide they need to boost income...circularity or what!? If mortgages had remained single income only, they could have kept their second incomes for childcare, holidays, pension - or decided they didn't need to work, if that suited them.
Instead we are taxed in order to give out childcare vouchers to people who have to work, but who cannot also afford to care for their children; madness!
Not sure that a massive section of women who go on to have children would be totally fussed about returning in a hurry, plenty seem to drag out maternity and only go back part-time to keep their brains ticking over if they are can afford to, but many go back just to maintain the income level because they have to.0 -
-
Do you know (as far as I know there are no facts to support either view point)?
Do working women not pay for child care?
My wife works part time because she wants to.
She used to work full time, had a year off and went back part time. We could cope without her working.
Like i said if it was a house or children I know what would win so unless you have a good statistic of how many women put owning a house above having/looking after children what you are trying to make is to suit your viewpoint nothing else.
Women work and in a free society have every right to do so.
They also have the right to include their wages in a mortgage application.
I would agree that woman have the right to work the only thing I am saying is that including their wage in mortgage application increases the size of mortgage and therefore house prices.0 -
population increase is only a partial affect, as an increase in population does not lead to the same increase in household numbers
eg. if a family have a 3rd child, it has increased the population, but hasnt increased the household numbers, as they arnt going to buy a 2nd house just to house an extra family member.
Roll forward 20 years.
That one household now has given birth to 3 new additions to the home owner wannabes / renters.
You've also not considered net migration.
Has property increased sufficiently for that demand?:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards