'team Mum' Props Up High Prices

[(Blizzard)]

Mum and Dad are strangers to their children ??? Is that what you really believe ?

Do you think working mums are lesser parents because we aren't physically with the children 24/7 ?

I was a stay at home parent to my first two before they went to school and can honestly say I am a much better mother to the next two as a result of getting out of the house and having a life of my own too.

My children know me and more to the point I know if they have grown a new hair before breakfast we don't stop thinking about them and parenting once we arrive at work (in fact I do most of my "work" in the first two hours and then spend the next 4 online shopping, researching project information, printing interesting pictures or reading latest research into education methods, best schools etc as my computer faces the window rather than the boss).

This golden age of housewife's people keeping referring back to led to many very unfilled women who are currently blowing their kids inheritance and plenty they haven't got too to make up for the fact that they were second hand Rose's whilst their children grew up.

I think very few people still believe that women shouldn't be allowed to work, if they want.

The sad aspect to all of this is that by fighting for the right to work, women have won the obligation to work.

They campaigned for more freedom, won, and ended up with less.

Edited October 12, 2011 by (Blizzard)

[iLegallyBlonde]

I think very few people still believe that women shouldn't be allowed to work, if they want.

The sad aspect to all of this is that by fighting for the right to work, women have won the obligation to work.

They campaigned for more freedom, won, and ended up with less.

It depends what you consider freedom though I quite like the idea that I stay married because I want to not because I couldn't feed and clothe 4 kids without a man to support me.

People make their own prisons be it debt, a crap job, being a housewife whatever.

[miko]

It depends what you consider freedom though I quite like the idea that I stay married because I want to not because I couldn't feed and clothe 4 kids without a man to support me.

People make their own prisons be it debt, a crap job, being a housewife whatever.

Freedom in having the choice to work or not . Most have to work that is not Freedom.

Feed and clothe 4 kids without a man , you said in another post you get all your work done in 2 hours . What kind of job do you have that only takes you 2 hours a day and would pay enough to put the roof over the familys head plus food and clothes for 5 people.

[(Blizzard)]

It depends what you consider freedom though I quite like the idea that I stay married because I want to not because I couldn't feed and clothe 4 kids without a man to support me.

People make their own prisons be it debt, a crap job, being a housewife whatever.

Sometimes you make your own prison, and sometimes the prison is made for you.

I think it would be great if people - single, married, gay, whatever - could raise children without working themselves to death.

With modern technology this is perfectly possible, and yet we can't seem to manage it.

That alone shows how messed up the economy is, and has been since well before the crash.

Edited October 12, 2011 by (Blizzard)

[shell]

I do most of my "work" in the first two hours and then spend the next 4 online shopping, researching project information, printing interesting pictures or reading latest research into education methods, best schools etc as my computer faces the window rather than the boss

Yes it's clear lots of 'working' mums must be spending most of their time at work emailing friends, booking holidays and buying clothes, make up and kids shoes. When else can they do all that? Weekends would be dominated by the kids and domestic stuff. However, what with bosses checking up on employees' internet usage more and more these days, none of these working, or rather 'shirking' mums, will be missed when they're sacked, as current figures show they are indeed being sacked.

Personally I have no problem or indeed interest in who works when, where or how much, or what gender they are. I'm just interested in house prices and what might make them fall!

[sundance_kid]

There only been one valid reason in recent history why women were required to enter the work place. A world war.

It is highly amusing and also saddening to see how women were so easily convinced to exchange their shackles from the kitchen to the office.

[iLegallyBlonde]

There only been one valid reason in recent history why women were required to enter the work place. A world war.

It is highly amusing and also saddening to see how women were so easily convinced to exchange their shackles from the kitchen to the office.

At least you get coffee breaks and to use the loo on your own in the office which is more than can be said about working in the home

[miko]

At least you get coffee breaks and to use the loo on your own in the office which is more than can be said about working in the home

Why can you not do those things at home with kids ?

[mfp123]

No its not nonsense

Earn more and then just pay more for something does not make anyone better off.

If house prices were affordabel on one full time income of 40 hours , what is the point of needing 80 hours of work for the same thing.

Just because more women have opted to stay in the work force does not mean more people are working , that would only be the case if we had zero unemployment and women opted to stay working. At present while a working mum stays in the workforce someone else stays out.

Coupled with that how many people have stayed in employment both male and female beyond retirement age due to the high cost of housing ?

Again forcing others out.

its is because do you really think the uk is in its own economic bubble.?

if we stand still, the world also stands still?

thats not reality, the world moves on. the UK doesnt not determine the price of goods and services around the world. the cost of cars, gas , electricity, food, goods, doesnt rely on the UK.

an economy is the sum total of all activity.

if 1/3 of the UK population started doing nothing yes house prices would come down but thats because wed all become poorer.

if you think rising wealth is the problem resulting in high house prices youre looking at the issue completely wrong.

note you wouldnt want yourself to be poorer, you just want other people to be poorer so the cost of housing falls for you.

but what your missing the point about is that if the economy was weaker, you would be paid less and would be poorer too.

Edited October 12, 2011 by mfp123

[shell]

Why can you not do those things at home with kids ?

Illegallyblonde was basicaly saying that if you have kids you know damn well that going to 'work' is the easy option.

Looking after kids can be great fun, indeed 'the best job in the world' but it is extreme. Some women find the workload, isolation, boredom, lack of pay and indeed the lack of status that comes with full time parenting beyond their capabilities and choose to go to 'work' instead where they can mix with other grown ups, enjoy peace and quiet, and indeed go to the toilet without the ravings of a wild toddler ruining the moment.

Full time working mothers loathe full time parenting mothers and vice versa and they both get v heated on the subject of what's best for the children.

I just want house prices to drop!

[miko]

its is because do you really think the uk is in its own economic bubble.?

if we stand still, the world also stands still?

thats not reality, the world moves on.

an economy is the sum total of all activity.

if 1/3 of the UK population started doing nothing yes prices would come down but thats because wed all become poorer.

if you think rising wealth the problem resulting in high house prices youre looking at the issue completely wrong.

and note you wouldnt want yourself to be poorer, you just want other people to be poorer so the cost of housing falls for you.

Wrong again

What has you asking is the uk in its own economic bubble got to do with what we are talking about ?

Nothing ever stands still , it either moves forward or backward .

Quite aware that the economy is the sum total of all activity.

Going on recent figures there are currently 8 million economically inactive , that is about 1/3 of the adult population excluding pensioners. That is adults who do not do anything as there is nothing for them to do .A far higher amount than 10 years ago. So in that case why have house prices not come down already ? Let me answer that one for you .

Because those that are economically active use two wages when they go and buy a house . That is the reason house prices rose so much and stay high . I never once said rising wealth was the reason ( however rising wealth will have an impact ) , LET ME REPEAT I said using two incomes !! UNDERSTOOD. Using two incomes does not demostrate rising wealth on its own rising wealth is when each component is wealtheir on its own merits not because two people have pooled wages . If 3 people clubbed together to buy a house and used 3 wages and paid more again would that prove that the uk is more wealthy ?

Can you not tell me what I want . Housing rising or falling makes little difference to me . If it rises this place goes up , if it falls this place goes down but so does the next place rise or fall in line with this one. For Me personnely makes little difference !

I have a Sister who has to work , who has kids and would really love to give up work but the cost of housing keeps her and the other 30 somthing women in her office still in work. While she and the others she works with would love to quit working they cannot and while they work they keep the next generation ( many of them in my family ) out of the work place . RINSE AND REPEAT THOUGHTOUT THE LAND.

So looking at it logically housing falling in price would be good for the 30 somethings and the 20 somethings and those even younger .

Ask any young couple taking 4 an 5 x their joint salary to buy a tiny starter home and ask them when they think they will be having kids ? They will tell you not yet . And I bet they will be way over 28 already the prime age for the women to have her first kid 15 years ago. If we have got so much more wealthy as a nation why are they not having them younger than 15 years ago ? Why is the age of the first kid going up all the time ? Answer is in the above.

[mfp123]

Wrong again

What has you asking is the uk in its own economic bubble got to do with what we are talking about ?

Nothing ever stands still , it either moves forward or backward .

Quite aware that the economy is the sum total of all activity.

Going on recent figures there are currently 8 million economically inactive , that is about 1/3 of the adult population excluding pensioners. That is adults who do not do anything as there is nothing for them to do .A far higher amount than 10 years ago. So in that case why have house prices not come down already ? Let me answer that one for you .

Because those that are economically active use two wages when they go and buy a house . That is the reason house prices rose so much and stay high . I never once said rising wealth was the reason ( however rising wealth will have an impact ) , LET ME REPEAT I said using two incomes !! UNDERSTOOD. Using two incomes does not demostrate rising wealth on its own rising wealth is when each component is wealtheir on its own merits not because two people have pooled wages . If 3 people clubbed together to buy a house and used 3 wages and paid more again would that prove that the uk is more wealthy ?

Can you not tell me what I want . Housing rising or falling makes little difference to me . If it rises this place goes up , if it falls this place goes down but so does the next place rise or fall in line with this one. For Me personnely makes little difference !

I have a Sister who has to work , who has kids and would really love to give up work but the cost of housing keeps her and the other 30 somthing women in her office still in work. While she and the others she works with would love to quit working they cannot and while they work they keep the next generation ( many of them in my family ) out of the work place . RINSE AND REPEAT THOUGHTOUT THE LAND.

So looking at it logically housing falling in price would be good for the 30 somethings and the 20 somethings and those even younger .

Ask any young couple taking 4 an 5 x their joint salary to buy a tiny starter home and ask them when they think they will be having kids ? They will tell you not yet . And I bet they will be way over 28 already the prime age for the women to have her first kid 15 years ago. If we have got so much more wealthy as a nation why are they not having them younger than 15 years ago ? Why is the age of the first kid going up all the time ? Answer is in the above.

it is not 2 people doing the same job as 1 person could do the 1960's. an economy is not a zero sum game. if 1 person does 40 hours of work a week, 2 people can do 80.

we do not have the same amount of wealth in the economy at both 10% and 30% unemployment. you would not have the same wages you have now if unemployment in the UK was 30% and there were lots more stay at home mums. if that happened, house prices would fall, but so would your wages.

lets look at the flip side, lets say in the 1960's more mums didnt start working, but in addition, working males in the family did less work today than they did back then, lets say 30 hours in the week instead of 40. 50 years on wed surely have better standard of living becuase houses would be super cheap, no?. no ones doing hardly any work, and so the cost of housing would be akin to eastern europe.

the poorer the country is, the cheaper the housing. but the poorer the country, the lower the standard of living.

Edited October 13, 2011 by mfp123

[mfp123]

to put the issue simply. people are saying unemployment in the UK used to be 30%, but now its only 10%.

if unemployment was to go back to 30% the country would be in much better shape and its better for everyone. thats nonsense.

the fact that you single out "mums" is irrelevant. the reality is that this group was simply the "previously unemployed" .

[miko]

it is not 2 people doing the same job as 1 person could do the 1960's. an economy is not a zero sum game. if 1 person does 40 hours of work a week, 2 people can do 80.

we do not have the same amount of wealth in the economy at both 10% and 30% unemployment. you would not have the same wages you have now if unemployment in the UK was 30% and there were lots more stay at home mums. if that happened, house prices would fall, but so would your wages.

let look at the flip side, lets say in the 1960's more mums didnt start working, but in addition, working males in the family did less work today than they did back then, lets say 30 hours in the week instead of 40. 50 years on wed surely have better standard of living becuase houses would be super cheap, no?. no ones doing hardly any work, and so the cost of housing would be akin to eastern europe.

the poorer the country is, the cheaper the housing. but the poorer the country, the lower the standard of living.

Your first paragraph means nothing cannot make head nor tale of it quite frankley.

In real terms wages have fallen in the last 20 years . Read some of the posts on this site they will confirm that .

Going back to the 1960's the working week was slightly longer than it is now . Most women did not work full time once they had had kids . Housing was cheaper . As for the standard of living yes it only took one wage to buy and keep the house , plus pay all the bills . The few familys where the woman did work would have had a far better standard of living than the double income family have now.

If you think people paying more for houses due to using two incomes instead of one proves that the nation is wealthier then why have they had to borrow higher x their wages for the same thing ? Go back to the 60's it was 2.5x main income and 1x second income or 3x main income. If we still used those multiples and houses had risen like they have then we could say everyone was that much more wealthy as those income multiples would show the incomes had grown. But we do not use those multiples any more we use 4 and 5 x joint THAT IS WHY HOUSES HAVE GONE UP.

Did ask you in the other post :- if 3 people clubbed together and used 3x their joint income to buy a house and pay more for it would that make the nation more wealthy ? you did not answer why ?

[miko]

to put the issue simply. people are saying unemployment in the UK used to be 30%, but now its only 10%.

if unemployment was to go back to 30% the country would be in much better shape and its better for everyone. thats nonsense.

the fact that you single out "mums" is irrelevant. the reality is that this group was simply the "previously unemployed" .

Who said unemployment was 30% and is now 10% ?

No one has singled out mums what I have said and others have said is that people using two wages instead of one when buying houses has pushed up the costs . Quite simple really if you think about it.

[mfp123]

Did ask you in the other post :- if 3 people clubbed together and used 3x their joint income to buy a house and pay more for it would that make the nation more wealthy ? you did not answer why ?

obviously yes. if it use to be only 1 person in employment earning money but now there are 3 then yes the country is wealthier because theres 3x the employment and people earning money.

people earning more does drive up house prices. thats what im telling you. but house prices based simply on earnings is the equilibrium for house prices. its not a bubble.

if all house prices today can be supported by the rise in employment and earnings then were not in a housing bubble. todays prices are correct. thats what your suggesting. that assertion is wrong.

Edited October 13, 2011 by mfp123

[mfp123]

Who said unemployment was 30% and is now 10% ?

No one has singled out mums what I have said and others have said is that people using two wages instead of one when buying houses has pushed up the costs . Quite simple really if you think about it.

either the mums are working or they arent. your saying houses use to be cheaper becuase they didnt work. but they cost more now that they do. if working mums stayed as housewives like they use to, unemployment in the country wouldnt be 10% it would be 30%.

thats not a solution to anything.

[miko]

obviously yes. if it use to be only 1 person in employment earning money but now there are 3 then yes the country is wealthier because theres 3x the employment and people earning money.

Still cannot answer the question can you !!

I did not say there was 1 person in employment and now there was 3 .

I asked if 3 people clubbed together pooled their wages and bought a house for more money would that make the nation richer ?

Will answer it for you as you are to thick to understand the question . No it would not as it would just be a case of 3 wages being needed instead of 2 or 1 as it was 20 years ago to purchase the same house.

[miko]

either the mums are working or they arent. your saying houses use to be cheaper becuase they didnt work. but they cost more now that they do. if working mums stayed as housewives like they use to, unemployment in the country wouldnt be 10% it would be 30%.

thats not a solution to anything.

You have not got a clue .

Will repeat it again see if you can understand this time .

I said and listen very carefully HOUSES HAVE GONE UP AS PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES USE TWO INCOMES WHEN BUYING INSTEAD OF ONE.

There is x amount of employment does not matter who does the work there is only x amount . If working mothers gave up work those unemployed men or single women without kids would take the jobs . There would still be the same amount of employment .

[mfp123]

Still cannot answer the question can you !!

I did not say there was 1 person in employment and now there was 3 .

I asked if 3 people clubbed together pooled their wages and bought a house for more money would that make the nation richer ?

Will answer it for you as you are to thick to understand the question . No it would not as it would just be a case of 3 wages being needed instead of 2 or 1 as it was 20 years ago to purchase the same house.

what are you talking about.

the arguement is that 20 years ago there would have been only 1 earner in the household and now there are 2. does that make them wealthier? yes. does that drive up house prices? yes, but thats a natural effect of increasing wealth.

you cant compare that to 3 people already earning wages and clubbing their money together. becuase mums used to be earning zero i.e they were unemployed.

the debate is whether the higher employment of women over the years, is causing high house prices and thus reduced living standards.

so its comparing whether people that used to be unemployed i.e stay at home mums, vs people that are now employed i.e working mums, is good or bad for the country and its living standards.

Edited October 13, 2011 by mfp123

[pyewackitt]

For those conspiracy theorists on the forum.

This is Aaron Russo talking about a private conversation with Nicholas Rockefeller:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918#

29mins 5secs in.

"What do you think Women's liberation was about?" and onwards.

Bascially says that women's lib was designed to increase the tax base and allow indoctrination of children against the typical family unit by creating the concept of state as powerful from an early age.

Believe what you want but take a moment to think on this...

- Pye

Edited October 13, 2011 by pyewackitt

[(Blizzard)]

...

the arguement is that 20 years ago there would have been only 1 earner in the household and now there are 2. does that make them wealthier?

...

No, it doesn't. That's the whole point. It only makes them wealthier if they can use the 2 wages to buy more stuff.

If your household income increases by £1000, and your housing costs increase by £1000, then you are now worse off since you have the same thing that you had before, but you both have to work to get it.

Couples are working harder to get the same standard of living making them poorer overall.

This is because of people who aren't working at all in return for the same standard of living - landlords and other economic rent seekers.

Couples working has made these people far better off, which is one of the reasons we such an increasing gap between the rich and the poor.

Edited October 13, 2011 by (Blizzard)

[the stig]

My little slice of other people's lives...

I dropped my lad off at nursery this morning. A couple pulled up in their estate car. Both looked a bit miserable. Dad got out and took his bike out of the boot, presumably for getting to the train station. Mum got the kid sorted. A quick (not convincing) "luv you", followed by the Dad stating that he wouldn't be home until 11 o'clock.

They then go their separate ways. Mum drives off. Dad cycles to work. Kid gets looked after by nursery.

[mfp123]

No, it doesn't. That's the whole point. It only makes them wealthier if they can use the 2 wages to buy more stuff.

If your household income increases by £1000, and your housing costs increase by £1000, then you are now worse off since you have the same thing that you had before, but you both have to work to get it.

Couples are working harder to get the same standard of living making them poorer overall.

This is because of people who aren't working at all in return for the same standard of living - landlords and other economic rent seekers.

Couples working has made these people far better off, which is one of the reasons we such an increasing gap between the rich and the poor.

at the end of the day were talking about rising household incomes.

but even putting that out of the equation. lets say single people have rising household income. say over 5 years average UK earnings go up from 20k to 25k.

the average mortgage and hence house prices rise by the same proportion.

3.5 x 20k = 70k mortgage. 3.5x 25k = 87.5k mortgage.

thats all your saying. that isnt a problem, and it isnt the problem. thats simply a natural occurence in a housing market.

the solution is not to lower earnings, because thats such a backwards way of looking at the current problem.

Edited October 13, 2011 by mfp123

[miko]

at the end of the day were talking about rising household incomes.

but even putting that out of the equation. lets say single people have rising household income. say over 5 years average UK earnings go up from 20k to 25k.

the average mortgage and hence house prices rise by the same proportion.

3.5 x 20k = 70k mortgage. 3.5x 25k = 87.5k mortgage.

thats all your saying. that isnt a problem, and it isnt the problem. thats simply a natural occurence in a housing market.

the solution is not to lower earnings, because thats such a backwards way of looking at the current problem.

3.5 x 20k =70k mortgage . infaltion adjusted five years later 3.5x 25k =87.5k mortgage . Buys same house as five years prior. 87.5k is the same amount of money as 70k was five years ago.

3.5x 20k =70k mortgage . infaltioin adjusted five years later 3.5x 25k =87.5k mortgage but x it by 2 as the second income is taken into account =175k so they pay 175 for the same house that should have been 87.5 k.

They are not doing this because wages have risen but because two incomes have been needed to buy house. That does not make them better off they now need two inocmes to service the mortgage on the same house as inflation adjusted it has doubled in real price. Their incomes have only risen with inflation but the house has doubled.

No one has said lower earnings , what we have said is if you use two incomes to buy the house the houses will double in price.