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

IveSeenTheLight

The_White_Horse wrote: »

If there was demand, but no credit, then there would be waiting lists and smallish price increases.

Surely it would be pointless for most to be on the waiting list.
It would be the highest earners that would be buying the property and those on less wouldn't have had the oppertunity to buy.

Most likely there would be less home owners today and more renters.
That is of course how the golden years were of days gone by :rolleyes:

Mr.Brown_4

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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).

I agree. Now both sexes are shafted. Another twenty years should see the foetus artificially farmed in some breeding shed (ex Bernard Matthews) while people basically work from the cradle to the grave. This will probably enable a few more quid on the price of a house if that's what turns you on.

ps. Didn't really understand the two times this, three times that stuff - but I am sure its useful to some people..

the_ash_and_the_oak

increased availability of credit

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

:t

well said

ukcarper wrote: »

There were more council houses they hadnt 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.

Sounds like there used to be more of a housing shortage back then

ukcarper

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Sounds like there used to be more of a housing shortage back then

I think there was private rental market a completely different thing then.

carolt

increased availability of credit

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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



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.



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.

7-10 years out of a working life isn't that much. 7-10 years out of a mortgage is quite a lot - esp as it's usually nearer the beginning than the end of the mortgage period. That's why the long-standing rule (3 x single, or 2.5 x single, and 1 x second income), was used and why it worked. My mum earned more than my dad, when they bought, but I never heard her clamouring to be put on the mortgage so she could buy the same house for 3 times the price. :rolleyes:

Maybe you're happy working full-time and are not bothered about spending time with your son. Most parents I know would prefer to be able to work less hours and spend more time with their families, than have a larger mortgage to pay off. Men or women.

treliac

increased availability of credit

Really2 wrote: »

Do you expect women to wait for men to sweep them of there feet and start a family at just after school age.

Yeah, it's a regular event don't you know? Only they don't expect the same man to stick around for long. :rolleyes:

Really2

Emy1501 wrote: »

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.

That's one hell of a generalization, your children will be going to school one day and you will not be able to select there friends then.
Personally I was never a troublesome child but had the pee took out of me for living in a council estate.
A lot of the time it is the children that do not live in council estates are nasty to the council renters not the other way round.
Personally I will not be having my child avoid other children just because of how fortunate/unfortunate they are.

carolt

increased availability of credit

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.

Really2

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

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.

PasturesNew

increased availability of credit

jenner wrote: »

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

Where I grew up, it was in a village outside of the town. So there were two lists: one for town, one for not. You could only go on the town list if you lived in the town or worked in it. So I had to go on the "not town" list. But the trouble with that is there were no flats in the countryside. The only 1-bed places they built were bungalows - and all the bungalows were for retired people. So, for single people, there wasn't a chance to get a council place at all. That was in the 80s/90s.