Womens wages have increased house prices

richgirl

moomin-mama wrote:

In 1997 my property was 'worth' £60000 affordable on my single salary of £20000 and this in the south of england. Now, that same house is 'worth' £160000 but my salary in the same job is now £26000. Clearly something is going on as I would not be able to afford my own house if I were starting out today. AFAIK, women have been working more than the last 9 years! (they've always worked but thats another thread)

Partly its low interest rates and the creation of a debt culture. If interest rates had remained at the average of 7% how many people would be able to sustain their current mortgage?

Low interest rates, low inflation leading to small wage increases, student debt, buy to let (and rent to people who cant afford to or don't want to buy), and our reliance on credit will at some point lead to problems. The economic system we have depends on the circulation of more goods, services and money so it was inevitable more women went into paid work. Whether or not that has led to the current house prices is a far more complex question.

UK money supply is running at 13% per annum, that money has to flow into something.

The true measure of assets has to be against the likes of gold. As governments can print as much money as they like, in which case house prices over the last few years have fallen sharply !!!!

You have all been fooled into thinkiing you have got richer when in fact youve been stealthly getting poorer

mountainofdebt

because when the new maternity rights go through women of child bearing age will find it nigh on impossible to find work.

hedley

I would be interested to have a reference for all this 'evidence' from all these 'right thinking sensible economists'.

No one group or factor is singularly responsible for ANYTHING in peacetime!!!

It just doesn't make sense--oh yeah, btw and 'me and me mates' are intending stopping the iraq war tomorrow!!!

Come on peeps..!
Hed

paint

Gorgeous_George wrote:

I was asked how lesbians would buy a house if only male wages were taken into account. I shall not be drawn on this subject as it is off-topic. I will say however that, in my heart,I do not agree with the 'normalising' of unnatural behaviour.

You were also asked, somewhat facetiously, if single women should be permitted to purchase a house, and whether people with ginger hair should be paid more. I note you chose not to comment on any of my other points or questions, instead chosing to express your entirely off-topic views on the morality of homosexuality.

At no point did I ask you for your views on the joys (or otherwise) of Sapphism, nor do I care to hear them.

Gorgeous_George wrote:

Assuming employers have a finite amount of cash to spend on wages and in order for women to earn the same as men, men's wages must have decreased to some degree.

Doesn’t this negate the basis of the argument that taking into account two incomes has fuelled house price inflation? If male income decreases as female income increases to catch up, could the net effect be a combined household income which my be only marginally higher than before?

Gorgeous_George wrote:

I do not have a problem with equal pay for men and women doing the same job. I never said that I had.

No, but you did say:-

Gorgeous_George wrote:

There was a time when women chose to go to work for a little pin money. Equal opportunities ended that luxury.

I inferred from this statement that your view on equal opportunities was not a wholly positive one. The fact that you have subsequently chosen to go out of your way to express your disapproval of same-sex couples purchasing houses together only reinforces this.