Can someone please explain....

LeanneF

This is going a little off-topic. The original gripe seemed to be that way back in the 70s you could afford a house on one income & that therefore it was better than today where you need 2 incomes.

However, the responses so far have shown this not to be the case because back in the 70s most households did need 2 incomes and also because nowadays there are plenty of people buying on one income. So really, things are neither better nor worse. They're just the same. Although, there are definately less glam-rock fans about now. That is indisputable.

Bargain_Rzl

To return to an earlier point, a buyer with a £30k single salary is actually in a better position to buy than a couple with a combined salary of £40k where one partner earns £25k and the other £15k. A lender will be likely to offer a single borrower a minimum of 3.5x income, but may only lend a couple 2.5 times their combined income (or 3.5x the first income + 1x the second) so with those figures, a single buyer on £30k might easily raise a mortgage of £105k while a couple on £25k and £15k might only get £100-£102k ... This is ignoring the stupid income multiples which some lenders now offer (could I get a £175k mortgage? Probably. Could I afford the monthly outgoings? Probably (if I never intended to repay the capital!). Would I, by doing so, impoverish myself to the extent that I couldn't afford to step outside the house? Probably. Would I ever be prepared to do this? Definitely not!)

pawpurrs

Love it Bargain!
Just about to move (hopefully) and the mortgage repayments are frightning, thought the same when I bought my first house too.
I think its allways been difficult, for a lot of people.
I blame maggie thatcher..............hee hee

Mrs_pbradley936

Hello again everyone,

I am a woman, in my 50s who worked before I had children and then stayed at home until they were off hand. It is due women of my generation and older that women enjoy equal rights today. In the same way our generation was responsible for same sex relationships to be made legal (someone once told me that it was never a crime to be a lesbian, but I am not sure it that is true). I was also amongst those that refused to buy Cape fruit when the aparheid system was going on in South Africa. Women now enjoy rights they did not previously have - not just with regard to money. How would you like to have to get your husband's permission before you could go on the pill? No husband - "well then you don't need the pill then do you?" Would have been the answer you got. So believe me when I say I do not need lessons in life from well educated, well paid young women who are educated and paid because women my age worked hard to make it so. While on the topic of education I wanted to go to university but was told only "bookish" girls with no marriage prospects did that. I was far to pretty to to stay on the shelf.

LeanneF

Hi PBradlely,

You're right, things have changed significantly for women over a relatively short period of time. I agree, much has been done & there is still much to do *shudders when realises that might be a quote from our dear leader*

However, I disagree that the goal of all those struggles was to enable the purchase of a house on a single *male* income thereby letting women stay home & look the kids.

Mrs_pbradley936

You are so right Leanne,

It was to enable choice and freedom. To make things better. The original point asked for someone to explain how this has been done. Instead of staying at home looking after the house, the children, the old and sick etc. women are now expected to do that and earn a wage. Perhaps it is because there are so many more things to buy now. On another post when someone was upset about their credit card debt I told them that a few years ago you could not be worse off than broke. Now you can - you can be in debt. I don't think that is better either.

Rimo2021

missk_ensington wrote:

Well considering the fact the woman has to carry it for 9 months and then go through excrutiating pain to get it out, then have it sucking on her tit for 6 months I'd say the Mother has a more significant role in the home than a man, but thats just my personal opinion. .

Being pregnant does not stop a woman doing a job; The excruciating pain is very quickly recovered from and maternity leave for 6 months to have the baby 'sucking on her tit' as you so tastefully describe it does not require a woman to opt out of her career for more than 6-7 months.

missk_ensington wrote:

You cannot evade the fact men and women are wired up differently, we are programmed to nurture, men are programmed to pro-create. It isn't the media's fault, or even sexists, its Gods fault since he gave men a !!!!!! and the ability to spread their seed and !!!! off leaving a woman. .

It seems you are programmed to accept traditional opinion without question instead of thinking for yourself. What evidence do you have that women are programmed to nurture by nature and not by society?? E=While I conceed that there may well be some truth in the idea that women are programmed to care for their babies when they are very small and vulnerable haven't you noticed than mankind has long been overcoming his natural programming and developing as a species. It's called Darwinism.

missk_ensington wrote:

If you want to blame anyone, blame men. If men weren't such bawastards in the first place getting women pregnant and dumping them, then women might not have needed to evolve in a way than enables them to survive by themself.

Grow up. If you don't want to be able to survive on your own for any other reason than necessity I can only hope you find someone to 'look after you' all your life.

clairehi

pbradley936 wrote:

now it is the norm to need two pay packets to make ends meet. Now both partners are on a treadmill rather than just one, but at least before a woman could stay at home with her children. When I look at the lives young women lead today I could weep. They are doing everything they ever used to and in addition are expected to make a financial contribution to the household.

Interesting point you make which I think has got a bit lost in the thread.

I have brought this up too on the MFW board in comparing the quality of life of my parents' generation vs ours (Im 33). My mother never worked during my childhood in the 70s/80s whereas I work fulltime (in a managerial level job) with 2 small children, in order to pay the mortgage on a comparable house - and my DH has a senior management job like my dad did. Just like my parents, we are scrimping somewhat to pay the bills, we dont have expensive holidays or cars but prefer to put the money into the house because we prefer to have a nice place to live.

I can only conclude that the affordability of housing has got worse over time; I think its just a case of supply and demand - new build housing simply has not kept pace with the increased number of households these days, and we are running out of space on our little island.

EdInvestor

The difference is that now it takes many people two wage packets rather than one. If you can live well on one wage and buy a property in the South or London then you are fortunate

I bought in London in the 70s and you either needed 2 wage packets or to rent out a room to pay the mortgage. Interest rates were massive.

Lots of people couldn't buy in those days because building socieites had a monopoly on mortgages and they would only lend on purpose built modern houses: not on flats, and not to singles of either gender, only to married couples and only after they had saved for 2 years with the BS.

Talk about conservative. Women got sacked from many jobs when they got married, couldn't get HP without a guarantor, couldn't sign a lease without a male guarantor, even if they had a good job.

It was the dark ages, man.

Mrs_pbradley936

Claire,

I think you are one of the few on this thread that can read. Others seem to think I want to ban women from taking out mortgages. We've got someone who does not seem to realise that the battle has been fought and won. That is why she can work towards self sufficiency if that is her aim, previously that would not have been possible.