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

the_ash_and_the_oak

increased availability of credit

the desire was there in 70s imo but to most would have seemed unattainable now with credit available to so many more it has become 'need. To so many. Never before have there been so many pets hanging on walls

Emy1501

increased availability of credit

Really2 wrote: »

Back to the difference of want and need then.

If my wife wanted to stay at home and the only way was to sell up I would sell up and move to rented without hesitation (If that worked out cheaper).


Funny how it seems we have a nation that put's houses before family.

For nearly all my younger years my parents either rented private or off the council, i don't think this "need to own" was around in the 70's.

I all about what you feel is best. I would rather my wife work than rent off the council due to kids my kids would end up mixing with. I have nothing against private renting but its not always that secure regarding length of rent and you can't do up a nursery which the woment love.

I not sure its all about own needs but a feeling that having their kid in a secure home is more important than being at home 24/7.

Also my experience may not be the norm.

PasturesNew

increased availability of credit

Thrugelmir wrote: »

3 part series on BBC , The City Uncovered by Evan Davies. Told the whole story from the early 90's through to the crash.

The Beeb should replay the series as very educational. Explains Lehmans, NR, even how the rocket scientists became involved in deriatives trading.

It's available online, in pieces. I couldn't immediately find it in one place/all pieces, but below might be the whole lot, but it's better than nothing:

Part 1: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8333302188771466394
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2dhJSmDhPY
Part 3: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6699301745307635258

CLAPTON

Errata wrote: »

Including the wife's wage has been possible for 50 years, and latterly also that of a 'parner'.

fifty years ago was 1959.... in general then the wife's (and then it would only be the wife's) income was only rarely included the mortgage application.
single women couldn't, in general get a mortgage at all without their fathers being a guarantor.

two friends almost impossible

by the seventies and a cultural change in attititudes to women, then it was possible to include a women's salary on the basis of
either 3 x man's salary and nothing from the womens
or 2.5 x man's plus 1 x women's
which every was greater

only over time (80/90's ) did the womens salary count as a equal so we saw 3 x joint and then we got to 4-5 x joint (2000's).



now as the supply of properties only increased a little and the amount of money increased a lot, a major factor in the increase in price was the credit available.

Errata

by the seventies and a cultural change in attititudes to women, then it was possible to include a women's salary on the basis of
either 3 x man's salary and nothing from the womens
or 2.5 x man's plus 1 x women's
which every was greater

OH and I got a mortgage on this basis in 1963.

carolt

increased availability of credit

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Sorry, but not all woman want to be kept by a man.

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.

The_White_Horse

are you all stupid - the answer is easy. there is a shortfall of houses (whatever the figure 25mill houses and 60mill people) and therefore there is a demand for houses. However, the increased availability of credit is what caused the huge price increase.

People simply couldn't have bought at the prices they did if the banks had said 3x salary and that is that, plus at least a 10% deposit.

If there was demand, but no credit, then there would be waiting lists and smallish price increases. The credit is what allowed the rises to be so vast. salaries certainly didn't rise 300%.

obviously, if there was no demand at all for houses and lots of credit available there would be no price rise.

It is a factor of those two things.

As you can see now - there is still a demand but no real credit - hence prices have levelled off.

The end.

puddy

less house building (reduced supply)

i dont know if this is the case, but it could be argued that society is more individualist than it used to, so whereas years ago, a young person would stay at home until they met someone, then rent for a bit, nowadays they are more likely to move out on their own and women especially tend to buy rather than rent.

i dont know if this only applies to the period asked about.

i know that very recentlly there has been reports of people staying at home much longer because of the price of rents and houses but if you take the past 30 years as a whole, i think people tended to buy on their own more than people did in the previous 30 years before that. a 22 year old for example would still be at home with their parents in the 60s if they were single, whereas in the 90s they may have moved out into rented or started to buy somewhere.

bo_drinker

Early on it was all the above, the lot went pop after the "must have" MEW'ers had drained the pot. But the top has got to be easy credit. I am told if you had a pulse you were in no problem.

Thatcher set the ball rolling for the need to own generation rightly or wrongly back in the day.

ukcarper

Really2 wrote: »

Back to the difference of want and need then.

If my wife wanted to stay at home and the only way was to sell up I would sell up and move to rented without hesitation (If that worked out cheaper).


Funny how it seems we have a nation that put's houses before family.

For nearly all my younger years my parents either rented private or off the council, i don't think this "need to own" was around in the 70's.

The need to own was stronger in the seventies unless you had children and could get a council house as there were very few properties to rent