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

puddy

less house building (reduced supply)

council housing was easier to get then too, by the time of right to buy and more pressure on social housing generally, getting a council flat or house became near on impossible, putting more pressure on the 'need' to buy

ukcarper

Errata wrote: »

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

not at the full multiply

ukcarper

jenner wrote: »

council housing was easier to get then too, by the time of right to buy and more pressure on social housing generally, getting a council flat or house became near on impossible, putting more pressure on the 'need' to buy

It was easier to get but impossible if you didn’t have children. In the late 60s I live in what would be called a slum today and my parents didn’t get a council house until my sister went to school as they deemed we could share until then.

ukcarper

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Dangerous ground there ukcarper.
Are you advocating that the culture should revert to single income households where woman's role is in the kitchen or trying to get a husband?

No but they should gain more that the work

the_ash_and_the_oak

increased availability of credit

ukcarper wrote: »

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

Council housing must have been huge because if fewer of the population owned and yet there were also few places to rent where else could they have all lived?

puddy

less house building (reduced supply)

ukcarper wrote: »

It was easier to get but impossible if you didn’t have children. In the late 60s I live in what would be called a slum today and my parents didn’t get a council house until my sister went to school as they deemed we could share until then.

but i know of lots of people that just got a flat by waiting, single people, no kids at the time?

lostinrates

Stay_tonight_in_a_lie wrote: »

I will not be returning to mse after tonight, I'm sure some of you will be pleased, others not so.

Do you want us to say stay tonight, Stay Tonight?

ukcarper

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Council housing must have been huge because if fewer of the population owned and yet there were also few places to rent where else could they have all lived?

There were more council houses they hadn’t been sold of then. A lot of people lived with their parents after they were married. I manage to buy a house, as that was the only option I had other than live with one of our parents.

ukcarper

jenner wrote: »

but i know of lots of people that just got a flat by waiting, single people, no kids at the time?

No one I knew done that although there were very few flats where I lived.

IveSeenTheLight

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.

It was this post in which in your opion woman worked because mortgages were too high

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=27276963&postcount=34

carolt wrote: »

Originally Posted by ukcarper
It is a culture shift I but are more women working because of bigger mortgages or are mortgages bigger because more women work.

Originally Posted by ukcarper
It is a culture shift I but are more women working because of bigger mortgages or are mortgages bigger because more women work.

The former.

This would presume that you believe less women would be working if mortgages were lower.
It was at this point I referred that not all women wanted to be kept by a man.
At that point the discussion was very much sexually orientated as to who was working.

carolt wrote: »

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.

Different argument, but those 'early years' equate to only 5 or so years.
Even if you have 3 children, you could be talking about 7 - 10 years.
Not much out of the standard working lifetime.

As the years have rolled on, the improvement of equality between men and women have meant that joint income earners would have a much better life than the equivalent if houses were affordable on a single income (or 2.5 + 1).

P.S. My wife is enjoying the precious early years with our son, but will return to work when he (or any other children we have) are at school age. The oppertunity is there.