What would happen if house’s dropped to the magic 3.5 times average income?

neverdespairgirl

buglawton wrote: »

Property developers could follow them, taking advantage of low land prices and no sign of medieval planning laws!

Medieval planning laws? Ours are almost all 20th century or later, not medieval.

The main medieval planning law I can think of is that you couldn't build a fortified castle without royal permission, in case you then rebelled.

Strings

marklv wrote: »

You probably earn megabucks in that case.

Which would therefore raise the ratio of income to mortgage value

ash28

treliac wrote: »

Which created the need for women/mothers to work and then locked them in to that need rather than allow them the right to bring up their own children.

I think a big contributor to women needing to work was deregulation and the fact financial institutions started treating married couples as 2 separate entities instead of one. When we bought in the early 1980s I was treated as an extension of my husband and at most I could have had 1 x my salary counted towards any mortgage unlike cohabiting couples or friends buying together who could have both salaries fully counted.

Married couples certainly set their sights higher - because they could.

All through the 1970s, 80s and 90s women fought for the same rights as men, for the right to be able to have a career after children, to have child care, equal pay, the right not to be sacked if you were pregnant, the right to return to work after having a baby, maternity leave, flexible working etc - we could have it all they said - well now we have it, a lot of us don't want it.

Linton

treliac wrote: »

Which created the need for women/mothers to work and then locked them in to that need rather than allow them the right to bring up their own children.

No - wrong way round.

In the old days (pre 1960s) washing day really was that, a whole day of hard work. Grates, floors, and doorsteps needed to be sweeped and polished - coal fires, no fitted carpets. etc etc.

Post war technology changed much of that and gave women the time to do other things. It also changed the nature of work - physical strength was no longer a major requirement but education increasingly was - to the advantage of women.

With wives working, families could afford to spend more on housing. So they did - increasing demand. With supply limited, the resultant bidding wars raised average prices from the barely affordable for a single wage earner to the barely affordable for a couple.

buglawton

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Medieval planning laws? Ours are almost all 20th century or later, not medieval.

The main medieval planning law I can think of is that you couldn't build a fortified castle without royal permission, in case you then rebelled.

By medieval I meant: in the sense that planning laws prevent change or progress.

N1AK

pingu2209 wrote: »

However, many people want to have an average house at 21 before they have worked up through their career. etc. They aren't prepared to live in a studio flat before they move to the next size house etc.

What's wrong with today's first time buyers wanting to buy a reasonable house, at the same age as the past two generations, when they are both earning and only one of the previous generation had to.

My grandparents married in their early 20s and bought a semi-detached house on just one income.

My parents married in their early 20s and bought a semi-detached house on one income (worth ~£220k today).

Both myself and my partner are in good jobs, both of which have salaries exceeding the equivalent of my Dad's or Granddad's. At 25 we reached the point where we could afford the same houses that they could.

I'm fortunate to be in a position to buy a proper house comparatively young. What I think many people don't understand is that most of the same generation aren't as fortunate as the last couple of generations or I. Given the situation, it is hardly surprising there is growing enmity towards older generations.

buglawton

Govt would love this 'enmity towards older generations' - divide and rule!

When the real target should be housing policy.

neverdespairgirl

buglawton wrote: »

By medieval I meant: in the sense that planning laws prevent change or progress.

The Middle Ages were a time of great change and progress.

N1AK

buglawton wrote: »

Govt would love this 'enmity towards older generations' - divide and rule!

When the real target should be housing policy.

Housing policy reflects the views of the people. People don't want new housing building near their house. Everyone who lives somewhere nice 'wants' new housing... just NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

The same people who complain that their children can't afford a house in the quaint little village, are fighting tooth and nail to stop new houses being built there.

If I have one issue with 'older generations' it is not that they have been knowingly greedy or malicious. It is that they haven't cared to think about the long term consequences of their actions on others:

1. Don't want the hassle of recycling, building up massive environmental issues for the future.
2. Hate the idea of higher petrol/electricity/gas prices, risking environmental problems and shortages.
3. Refuse to accept anything that weakens pensions or elderly benefits, and won't even consider paying to make up the deficit they were ignorant enough not to notice they built up. Relying (mostly unconsciously) on the next generation to stump up the cash.
4. Protect their community's from new housing or other building. Ignorant of the fact this is exactly what has priced their children out.

I'm not bitter, I doubt my generation would have been any more aware of what they were doing in the same situation. I'm also not honour bound to help them by funding their pensions and healthcare. If my tax burden ever became sufficient I'd happily work abroad where my money is mine or spent on services for me.

buglawton

Wow what a fantastic set of assumptions about the 'older generation'.

And as for the UK public getting the housing policy that they deserve...lets just say that a sub-class of the public probably has been able to prevent a decent policy appearing. But that sub-class does not represent the public as a whole.