Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest

Record 2.2Million Mothers Are Working Full Time To Keep Families Afloat

Recommended Posts

I don't know whats more shocking. The figures, or that fact that there is well written piece in the DM :o

Don't worry

Pieces like that are just those who perpetrated it all scoFFing over the result of their evil hand-CRAFT! ;)

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry

Pieces like that are just those who perpetrated it all scoFFing over the result of their evil hand-CRAFT! ;)

What does the capitalised 'FF' and 'CRAFT' signify in your post?

I only ask because I've noticed you do this sort of thing in a lot of your posts. It often seems from the content of your posts that it's some kind of conspiracy theory thing where you think everything has some hidden meaning? Not being negative, just curious.

In future could you put a little footnote whenever you do it so that rest of us can work out what you're going on about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The old argument against "average house = 3.5 x average salary" is that nowadays househoulds have 2 wage earners, so it is ok for houses to be 6 or 7 times salary.

However this DM article, (never thought I'd say it), correctly shows that some mothers are forced into working to pay their mortgage. This is the opposite of the claim that families choose to spend twice as much on houses because they already earn twice as much.

I believe an average house should be affordable on one average salary (3.5x of course), meaning one parent has the option to stay at home with kids. If they choose to work and buy a house for twice as much, that's fine, but it shouldn't be the norm.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1997, the average mortgage taken out to buy a home was just under £60,000, which was 3.5 times the average full-time salary of £16,666.

Today the average mortgage has ballooned to £145,000, which is nearly six times the average full-time salary of £26,000.

Or 3 times 2 average full-time salaries.

Feed 'em easy loans, get 'em into debt, and you have 2 drones working for the price of a house instead of one.

Win-win if you are an industrialist or a banker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or 3 times 2 average full-time salaries.

Feed 'em easy loans, get 'em into debt, and you have 2 drones working for the price of a house instead of one.

Win-win if you are an industrialist or a banker.

Plus if you have 2 drones working you can offer to lend them even more, especially if the house goes up in value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old argument against "average house = 3.5 x average salary" is that nowadays househoulds have 2 wage earners, so it is ok for houses to be 6 or 7 times salary.

However this DM article, (never thought I'd say it), correctly shows that some mothers are forced into working to pay their mortgage. This is the opposite of the claim that families choose can afford to spend twice as much on houses because they already earn twice as much.

I believe an average house should be affordable on one average salary (3.5x of course), meaning one parent has the option to stay at home with kids. If they choose to work and buy a house for twice as much, that's fine, but it shouldn't be the norm.

Indeed, and the rest of us shouldn't be either priced out or forced to pay for the bailout when people bleat on about how untenable their situation is. Their bed (rooms) they should lie in them (when they are not productively at work, of course, that is).

Aidanapword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be long before all the women go to work and all the men stay at home...

Like Spain? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Experts say the extreme pressure of the super-size mortgages needed to buy a home is a significant factor in forcing mothers back to work.

What it takes to be an expert...

Today the average mortgage has ballooned to £145,000, which is nearly six times the average full-time salary of £26,000.[/b]

I've been on hpc for 4 years, and yet I still find this shocking. I remember a D Tel article casually mentioned "the average 160k I/O mortgage"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the govt has recently said it wants to find out why the UK as a nation is getting less and less happy. They may spend millions on the research. IMO, the answer is right here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"average house = 3.5 x average salary"

No, average house = rental yield of 6-7%.

A 250k house rented at 1100/month needs to come down by 25% to approx 200k, whatever the salary multiple...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

loosening lending to enable households to borow 3+ times joint salary rather than 3 times main plus 1 times second or whatever has had the worst imaginable impact on the welfare of people in their 30s especially. the wives' salaries have gone from being something to top up disposables income to something that's needed to keep up with the joneses.

the beneficiaries are [obviously] the banks and the sellers-up at the top of the ladder who don't still work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

loosening lending to enable households to borow 3+ times joint salary rather than 3 times main plus 1 times second or whatever has had the worst imaginable impact on the welfare of people in their 30s especially. the wives' salaries have gone from being something to top up disposables income to something that's needed to keep up with the joneses.

the beneficiaries are [obviously] the banks and the sellers-up at the top of the ladder who don't still work.

and cocaine dealers, pimps for east European hookers and nurseries.

Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus if you have 2 drones working you can offer to lend them even more, especially if the house goes up in value.

Yep.

But the whole scheme only works if you have very tight planning restrictions. Otherwise, free people would just have their own homes built for them. (It costs less than £100/sq.ft. to have a house built by a good contractor.)

If house prices don't come down in a couple of years I am going to move to a free country. Preferably a republic, such as the USA, Switzerland or Germany, where free citizens (EDIT are allowed to. Jeeez... "are allowed to"?? I am even thinking like a fecking subject) can build their own homes. It is embarrassing to be a subject.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending our women to work has been a terrible decision. As quite a few people predicted when the idea was first put forward.. things will just get twice as expensive, and your average family will come to the exact same place.

And thats exactly what happened. We don't need our women at work. We do need our women at home taking care of kids and continuing our culture and traditions. So much culture has been lost with women working full time now, too tired to really participate and drive the traditions.

Guess what if all the women stayed home, house prices would adjust down to what one income could support. And so would everything else.

And the 'freedom to work'.. isn't freedom, because quickly most women were forced to work, as things got so expensive with the dual income families bidding them up. Thats why I am selling my idea of not allowing women to work, as 'freedom to stay home'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrap education.

Send all kids to work too.

Allow polygamy, so houses an be 100x earnings (1 husband +4 wives, or 3 husbands +2 wives etc).

Scrap retirement also.

Give all your money to bankers, do not pass go collect £200.

muahahaahA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending our women to work has been a terrible decision.

We didn't send them to work, they demanded the right to work. Even burnt their bras to make a statement about how much they wanted to work.

Serves them right then! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't send them to work, they demanded the right to work. Even burnt their bras to make a statement about how much they wanted to work.

Serves them right then! ;)

Mr Monk you're very poorly informed so let me clarify some of this for you:

1) Throughout history the majority of women (from lower income groups) have been employed outside the home e.g. in the fields, in textile production, in education

2) In Britain WW1 required women to take over jobs throughout the economy from men who had been called up

3) So many men were killed or seriously injured (potential husbands as well as their brothers and fathers) that after WW1 many women had to be financially independent

4) Factory jobs attracted women because they were superior to domestic service (being a maid, cook or housekeeper) due to higher pay, shorter hours and better working conditions

5) Women also became eager for employment as an escape route from violent and abusive relationships. They could have a better quality of life on their own

6) WW2 reinforced these experiences to another generation of women and so their demand for paid employment increased

7) Bra burning is largely a myth and relates to an incident at the 1968 Miss America contest where some women were protesting about sexual objectifciation and threw bras and other items into a dustbin. The police prevented them from burning the clothes. Here's a radio interview about it: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94240375

8) It must be recognised that many women will always need the opportunity to participate in the workforce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 285 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.