The 1960s house

margaretclare

I wish people would stop saying that it's a *new* thing that women now work for most of their lives whereas in the 1960s they didn't.

I'm 70 now, started work aged 16 in 1951, and I worked continuously from then apart from 3 years out to have 2 children 1961-1964, also 3 years as a full-time student 1978-81 (and even then I worked for 14 weeks every summer vacation). I worked until I was 67, that's a total of 48 years.

I mainly worked with other women, especially after I got into nursing in 1957 and then into midwifery in 1971. The fact that there were other women around means I couldn't have been so unusual.

What is different is that many of the married women didn't take their earning-power all that seriously. They did their jobs conscientiously and efficiently enough, don't get me wrong, but mostly they didn't take their earnings seriously. They'd talk as if they didn't really need it, and this was even after they'd admitted that their earnings helped to pay the mortgage (so what's new???), pay for a holiday or even buy shoes for the kids. In addition many of them failed to take seriously the idea of retirement provision for themselves and would laugh at me because I always paid full NI contributions and paid into the NHS pension scheme (and wow, how glad I am that I did so, many of my former colleagues are regretting it now).

It was possible to get into debt then although credit cards hadn't been heard of. We lost our first home in 1971 due to a consolidation loan.

I think what happened then was that no one wanted to return to the gloom and doom of the 1930s, people felt hopeful, having had hard times and wartime privations people felt there should be a better life and we were all prepared to work for it. All the women who'd enjoyed independence and earnings in WWII were not so keen to return to having no money except what husband chose to hand over.

Aunty Margaret

TheDink

My father bought his house in 1964 - the price was over 5 times his annual income. Little difference to today's situation (I have just bought at 4 times my income).

One difference that he perceives is that today people want to have more disposable income and thus are more wary about setting aside a large proportion of their wage to pay rent/mortgage. There's more choice these days, more activities available for leisure time, more people have cars, foreign holidays etc.

rozeepozee

I bought in 1993 for 75K ( a two bed terrace in London!), I just started working as a newly qualified solicitor and it was 3 times my income. Just over a decade later that sort of price seems risible. The same house must be worth ?250K now. Even as a 12 years qualified solicitor earning, say, 50K, I wouldn't be able to afford to buy it on my own.

lush_walrus

margaretclare wrote:

I wish people would stop saying that it's a *new* thing that women now work for most of their lives whereas in the 1960s they didn't.

I may be wrong, but I think you are more of an exception than the rule at least amongst my mothers piers, my mother studied, then worked full time for a couple of years, had children and never worked full time again, as did my aunts, my grandmother's and many of my mothers friends. All of which (aunts anyway) went to the effort of studying into their early 20s and gaining proffessions.

Simularily, my cousins who are in the 40s took between 5 and 8 years off while having children, which is a substantial amount of time to spend living on one income!

In contrast Im in my late 20s and only two friends have had children and both have taken approximately 6 months off after having children.

So just to look at the people who surround me (which I assume to be a cross section of society) the trends seem to have changed!

Im sure if the general rule was for women to work continuously through having children, the debate over working mum's and the effect on children would not be so rife and babies would not be attending newly established nursery's!

rozeepozee

lush_walrus wrote:

So just to look at the people who surround me (which I assume to be a cross section of society) the trends seem to have changed!

I'm sure if the general rule was for women to work continuously through having children, the debate over working mum's and the effect on children would not be so rife and babies would not be attending newly established nursery's!

I'm not sure you should assume that the people around you represent a cross section of society. Most people associate with a fairly narrow range of people.

My grandmother (now almost 90) and my mother (now almost 70) both worked for most of their lives. Nurseries weren't so necessary when the extended family lived close by and familes were larger so the older ones were involved in the upbringing of the younger. I agree with aunty margaret that women worked but did not necessarily see their work as careers and perhaps saw their income as 'pin money' - although in reality it was probably more than that. But maybe I'm getting off topic?

Pennywise

I, too, can't agree with this assertion that women didn't work - it just doesn't fit in with my personal and family history, nor what I know of British history.

My mother, my OH's mother, and our parent's mothers all worked for most of their "working age" life, with just a year or two off for child-rearing duties. Our grandmothers, great grannies, and aunties all worked in the mills of Northern England - not just in the period between leaving school and child-birth, but for years after as well. Family history has it they had no choice - if they didn't work in the mills, they'd starve. You have to remember there was a shortage of "men". During both world wars, most men were in the forces, a huge proportion never returned, and even in the period between the wars and for a decade afterwards, women were the prominent "workforce".

There were no creches or nurseries simply because children were looked after within the family - there were always a few grannies and aunties of retirement age who lived with their children or just a few doors away. The older retired generation were put to very good use - they had to be.

I think it was only the late 50's through the 60's when there was this perception of "stay at home mums" and I'm sure it wasn't as widespread as it's made out to be.

As for not knowing anyone who stayed at home until they married, it was certainly still very common until 10 years ago, and still happens now. All my immediate family lived at home until marriage (I only married 8 years ago). I think it's down to who your social group are. It is almost inevitable that anyone who goes to University won't return home until they marry, but my perception is that it's still relatively common for the majority who don't go to university (unless of course they're single mums to get their own council flat).

lush_walrus

Ok you all disagree, so what do you all women worked forever thinkers feel is the major factor in affordability of housing in the 1960s and now? Women working more now is just my opinion, it would be interesting to hear what you all think as to what has happened.

GDB2222

FaTB wrote:

1 / And the economy is rock solid today i suppose !! Open your eyes we are
heading for a massive recession at this very moment its just that The
Sun hasn't announced it to Joe Public yet.

2/ Yes because they were affordable then !!

3/ Look at the mess de-regulated lending has got us into, its helped to fuel
the biggest property bubble in history !!

4/ If people still only bought things when they have the money wouldn't
we be better off as a country ? Or am I being "old fashioned" ?
Is it better that we all live in massive debt ?

The question is whether the relaxation of lending criteria has led to a permanent change in the market. The 3 x salary average house price in the 60's was no coincidence. It was the multiple of earnings that lenders were prepared to lend. Now they lend what they think (and pray) the borrower can afford to repay, which does seem to average out at around 6 times earnings at the moment. As long as they keep lending at that sort of level, the crash I have been expecting may be avoided.

Of course, it's a very unstable situation. If the lenders perceive a reduction in house prices coming up, they will tighten their lending criteria, which will certainly bring about a crash.

rozeepozee

lush_walrus wrote:

Ok you all disagree, so what do you all women worked forever thinkers feel is the major factor in affordability of housing in the 1960s and now? Women working more now is just my opinion, it would be interesting to hear what you all think as to what has happened.

Where to begin? I speculate, but how about for starters, people's willingness to take on huge debts (some other posters have mentioned this) and societal expectations: what my mother and grandmother would have viewed as an unnecessary (and unaffordable - because of ?the unavailability of credit) expense is today seen as a necessity (e.g. a bedroom each for the kids - a bed for each of the kids would have been a great luxury for my grandmother!)

Maisie

I am 67 and have worked all my life. I lived at home until we married I was then 22.
I worked full time until I had children some 3 years later. As I didn't have family around I worked evenings and weekends when my husband was at home to look after the children. It was a matter of necissity to survive. No dss benefits then. Husband didn't earn much and my meagre wages were necessary.
House buying was not in our dreams at that time. When the children were old enough I worked more hours.

We lived in a council house and under Maggie Thatcher's right to buy we bought it.
The children had grown up by then and husband and I both worked full time to pay for it.

I worked until I was about 64. Now I do voluntary work.

Women's lives in the 60's were not easy with combining children and work with no nurseries or family around. We did not have a car until 198O and saved up to buy things and not hp or credit cards.
It was not like today's society where most people want everything 'now'. We waited
and appreciated things all the more for saving for them. There was no 'throw away' or changing furniture for the sake of it and fashion attitude. Or holidays abroad. If we were lucky we had a week in a b&b at the seaside.

It took two wages to buy our house and we couldn't have afforded to buy it before.

Remember also the 50's were just after the war and the country was just getting itself together. House buying was not a big priority then as there were no houses to buy.

Us oldies have had just as many (or more) hard times in buying houses as the young people of today.