Can someone please explain....

Mrs_pbradley936

missk_ensington wrote:

:rotfl: Something like that :rotfl:

Hey Lynz I got that Rules book, I've never read so much rubbish in my life! Gave it to the 16 y/o girl next door by page 10, thought she'd get more use out of it! lol

Is that the book that tells you to treat men badly and they will love you for it?

missk_ensington

Sorry very delaye reply, been in bed all week ill. Yeah it is, someone recommended it on another thread and since it was only 1p I decided to buy it for a laugh, didn't realise it was all about bowing down to your man and washing his feet and god knows what else!

Mrs_pbradley936

I thought this thread was finished. So sorry to hear that you have been ill - I wish you better. For anyone interested but who doesn't know about it the main theme of the book is "Let him chase you til you catch him". It is aimed at career minded women who have discoved that they have everything they want in terms of education, career, money and kudos but still want a man. Trouble is their attitude/behaviour makes men run a mile. Out dated now but perhaps relevant in the early days of the stuggle for equality.

missk_ensington

Some of it seemed ok, but was furious about the sipping mineral water on a date and pretending you dont drink or smoke! I guess its also regional, becuse if I did the stuf in that book in my small Lancashire village (like walking in pub but not making eye contact with anyone!) I think I'd either lose all my friends or get slapped! ha ha ha

seven-day-weekend

LeanneF wrote:

Who are all these women who stayed at home to look after the kids? Does anybody know them?

My Mum worked, my Nans both worked, my mother-in-law worked, all my mate's Mum's worked. And retirement aside, they still work. Women have always worked & they've worked because they've needed the money. The need for 2 incomes is not a new phenomenon, woman have always made and have needed to make a financial contribution to the household. They don't need you to weep for them.

I only knew about two working married women. My mum, nor my friends' mums, worked outside the home. My sister (16 years older than me) had to give her job up when she married. It was unusual in the circles we moved in for a married woman to have a paid job outside the home, and we were not well-off, my dad worked permanent nights on a machine in a factory.

Having said that, I think what the OP is trying to say is that the financial pressures on young families now is much more than it used to be. We bought our house easily on one income, and were able to keep it up even living on a student grant (albeit we had a lodger). I worked for the nine years of my marriage until our son was born and then, between us, we made the decision that I would be a SAHM. Many people do not have this choice these days.

However, when I first started work in the 60s and even up till the late 70s when I became a SAHM, my wage was nowhere large enough to buy any sort of property, because the equal wage laws were only just being introduced, and therefore women were discriminated against.

So, although a property could be bought easily on one income, most of the time it was a man's income that was counted because womens' salarieds were not enough.

So - I think it's swings and roundabouts.

Mrs_pbradley936

Many thanks for the support seven-day-weekend. I'm sure the young women here think I am making it all up.

cupid_s

I think everyone is so harsh for having a go at you pbradley. I am 24 and am forever telling my mom how easy she had it compared to me! it's nice that someone of her generation agrees with me.

I know they didn't take the womans salary into account then, but if they had my mom would have been able to buy their house which is now worth 190k on her own. yet she was earning less than the average wage then.

could a single person now on the average wage afford a house costing 190k? no. therefore two wages are often necessary just to live so there is not the choice for me to be a sahm as i would like to.

(i just had to edit this cos i remembered i wasn't still 22!)

Mrs_pbradley936

Thanks Cupid, we keep meeting on different threads don't we?

cupid_s

yep
i really should not spend so much time on here

F_T_Buyer

I think the OP has hit on a important point. It's not whether woman or single people should buy, it's about the liberalisation of lending criteria, and how it affects house prices.

As we have seen, the more buyers can borrow, the more house prices go up. We can easily see over the years how mortgage multiples have increased, and how their is no longer the requirement to pay off the debt - i.e. interest only.

We have recently heard about the deathbed mortgage, and how we can pass on our debt to our children, and the purpose of this is to keep house prices rising.

The market needs more and more money going in at the bottom to stop it from collapsing. Why do you think house prices haven't collapsed? It's because of the ever-accelerating creation of money that is produced out of thin air, and lent to borrowers. The whole money stock (read: debt) has increased by around 14% in the last twelve months. To be honest, i'm a little surprised house prices have risen so little, with so much money going into the market.

The problem we have is this cannot continue forever. Whatever product the banks introduce, the minimum you would need to pay without the bank losing money is the interest, i.e. interest only. Nowadays, even that is becoming more and more unaffordable.

So now look what the banks/media is doing. They're trying to convince us it's a good idea for our parents to be guarantor on the debt, or even better take equity out of their own home to help their children. All this will do is push prices yet further and further.

Look at politicians; they love talking about housing. This government is trying to help affordability by getting FTBs to only buy part of a house, i.e. shared ownership. Even the opposition are talking about shared ownership, yet the opposition parties have more than enough ammunition to attack Nu Labour (Nu Spin) on it's policies, but they don't because the majority, which are homeowners, don't want to hear it. Anything that pushes prices further up is good news in their eyes.

I have written to several MPs (or different parties) and they all miss the big picture. I'm not sure if it is deliberate, or they are just blind. But they all encourage more liberalisation/relaxation of credit to help those at the bottom (or shared equity products). All the MPs are in bed together, with their snout in the trough!

I'm surprised so many people jump up and support liberalisation of credit (e.g. deathbed mortgage). A girl I know, who used to boast about her housing wealth, got a smack of reality when she realised she couldn't afford to move up the ladder because noisy neighbours moved in.

I can see the end game now, I can't see what much more can be done to support the market. It could continue rising for a while yet, but when a recession comes (and it will eventually) people with unmanageable debt will be the worst hit. This is why you should plan for the worst.

Going back on topic, we are indeed worse off, we have fallen for the banks spell. We have been convinced debt is wealth; it's the greatest trick they have ever pulled!


~

I can tell you what will be happening a few years from now, if prices haven't collapsed (or at best stopped rising, so they are falling in real terms) real inflation, such as things you need to spend money on will be rising at such a fast rate, that this forum will be flooded with complaints about the high cost of things. I can see it as clearly as the cobwebs in my study.