Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

One In Three Families Has Both Parents In Full-Time Jobs As Number Of Working Mothers Rises


Recommended Posts

To sum it all up in one sentence all two incomes eventually achieved was that everybody can 'afford' to pay more for the same as far as housing is concerned, a bankers and speculators wet dream.

Spot on, and add that to near zero interest rates and what have you got?.....thousands of extra hours paid work required to pay for the same home that one income could once buy with double the debit interest rates......they call it progress or is it double productivity that doesn't work out at all productive for those that have to now work more to acheive less......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Exactly, it seemed when I was a kid (80s) there was an element of choice, you could afford a house on one income, but both parents working meant extras and a more comfortable life. Seems reasonable to me.

Now, you have to have dual income to afford a 'normal' mortgage on a normal house around my area (Surrey).

The greatest myth is that the mum's are bored at home and clamouring to return to work. Most come back feeling guilty about leaving their one year old with strangers, constantly on the phone to nursery. They normally come back part time as well, doing what they need to cover the mortgage and a few expenses.

The 80's was a time of boom, go back further and you have mine workers living in houses owned by mine owners, paid in vouchers that they could exchange for food and clothing with a big mark up profit for the mine owner, that was of course after your rent was taken from your wages.... My point is you can't just take a snap shot in time as things have always changed. In the 80's women were paid appallingly compared to men with sexism rife. Thats really not where we want to head back too...

I totally agree the South and especially the SE it is crazy and more houses need to be built or mass migration into the country curtailed.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that some mums return to work because they have to but having a child is also a choice, and finances should be looked at when having a child... My parents when I was born were living off stuff planted in the garden, we didnt have holidays, clothes were functional and mine were mostly hand me downs... Times have changed with everyone wanting an Iphone, most families having 2 cars etc, a one wage earner family is still more than possible but sacrifices have to be made, just like they always have the big difference now is the 20 something generation not willing to make those sacrifices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on, and add that to near zero interest rates and what have you got?.....thousands of extra hours paid work required to pay for the same home that one income could once buy with double the debit interest rates......they call it progress or is it double productivity that doesn't work out at all productive for those that have to now work more to acheive less......

Actually because of near zero interest houses are way more affordable now than they ever have been, the big issue is do you really want to pay crazy prices and have a massive mortgage because rates will eventually only go one way and then can you really afford it....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that some mums return to work because they have to but having a child is also a choice, and finances should be looked at when having a child... My parents when I was born were living off stuff planted in the garden, we didnt have holidays, clothes were functional and mine were mostly hand me downs... Times have changed with everyone wanting an Iphone, most families having 2 cars etc, a one wage earner family is still more than possible but sacrifices have to be made, just like they always have the big difference now is the 20 something generation not willing to make those sacrifices.

Are you sure you are on the right site? I hope you have thick skin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually because of near zero interest houses are way more affordable now than they ever have been, the big issue is do you really want to pay crazy prices and have a massive mortgage because rates will eventually only go one way and then can you really afford it....

Actually the lower the interest rates the higher the increase in the price of homes....add to that two full time incomes, and also in many cases IO meant the more money made available to lend.......maybe next they will pay you to borrow or buy with as many partners a possible over long a period as possible, or pass today's debt to the next generation.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the lower the interest rates the higher the increase in the price of homes....add to that two full time incomes, and also in many cases IO meant the more money made available to lend.......maybe next they will pay you to borrow or buy with as many partners a possible over long a period as possible, or pass today's debt to the next generation. ;)

I totally agree with you, but 200k at 1% interest is more affordable than 100k at 8%, my point was that at the moment because house prices are high does not mean that people are automatically paying more per month and hence mums having to go to work.... But there seems to be confusion by some between affordability and prices... if interest rates had risen then I could agree that more parents are going to work because of higher mortgage payments but that is not the case at the moment...

In Japan it is common place that generations of the same family live in a property and the mortgage is past from one generation to another, definitely don't want to see that in this country which is why we should either get building or reduce the demand by stopping the mass migration to our tiny island.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure you are on the right site? I hope you have thick skin.

Haha im very thicked skinned, I just don't think it does any good sensationalising a story and adding 2+2 and coming up with 5, it does not help the argument that we need a plan from the government which all they seem to come up with is attack BTL, which although it is good to restrict BTL as it was getting out of hand it will actually do nothing to help the ordinary person get a place of their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8% can drop to 1%........1% can rise to any percent.....the sum of the outstanding debt is what counts and how quickly it takes to repay it....only then it is yours;)

You are right but you cant argue that while rates are low and affordability is actually high that this is the reason more moms do full-time work....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right but you cant argue that while rates are low and affordability is actually high that this is the reason more moms do full-time work....

All for both parents working full-time and paying someone else to look after their children if that is their choice......but more and more parents no longer have choices unless they have help....you can never get back the lost years of your childrens first years.......pre school children do better when they are brought up by their own parents....happy, secure, safe and comfortable parents help turn their children turn into happy, secure and confident well adjusted adults.
Link to post
Share on other sites

All for both parents working full-time and paying someone else to look after their children if that is their choice......but more and more parents no longer have choices unless they have help....you can never get back the lost years of your childrens first years.......pre school children do better when they are brought up by their own parents....happy, secure, safe and comfortable parents help turn their children turn into happy, secure and confident well adjusted adults.

The point is they have the choice of having kids, some that are not in the financial position delay or don't have kids... How many of those parents that "Have" to work have the latest Iphone, two cars on the drive, at least one international holiday a year, live in a bigger house than they really need? All of those are choices that some people now stupidly think as necessity... There are some that are genuinely needing to work im not denying that but its not as many as you think...

You could just as easily say that children that mingle with more kids on a regular basis by going to nurseries work better in teams and have better social skills... I find those skills in work further people more than educational achievements... A good mix of the two is what is needed and for most parents I think that is true....

In the report how many hours per week are they classing full-time as often over 16hrs is seen as full-time. For most parents I would argue working much more than 15hrs per week which is the threshold of free childcare it is not financially sound as the cost of childcare will be higher than earnings after tax, all apart from higher earning parents, in which case it is likely to be a choice to go to work.... This is likely to get more pronounced as the living wage comes in and childcare costs will have to rise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is they have the choice of having kids, some that are not in the financial position delay or don't have kids... How many of those parents that "Have" to work have the latest Iphone, two cars on the drive, at least one international holiday a year, live in a bigger house than they really need? All of those are choices that some people now stupidly think as necessity... There are some that are genuinely needing to work im not denying that but its not as many as you think...

You could just as easily say that children that mingle with more kids on a regular basis by going to nurseries work better in teams and have better social skills... I find those skills in work further people more than educational achievements... A good mix of the two is what is needed and for most parents I think that is true....

In the report how many hours per week are they classing full-time as often over 16hrs is seen as full-time. For most parents I would argue working much more than 15hrs per week which is the threshold of free childcare it is not financially sound as the cost of childcare will be higher than earnings after tax, all apart from higher earning parents, in which case it is likely to be a choice to go to work.... This is likely to get more pronounced as the living wage comes in and childcare costs will have to rise.

How utterly detached from reality are you? I'm not sure if your a boomer or not but you 100% sound like one. your looking at a situation and claiming its I-phones or the young 'not willing to make sacrifices' that just screams of someone not willing to come to terms that boomers had it piss easy and voted to destroy their own children's futures.

I have a good job way better than my dad at his age despite the economic headwinds. My mum never worked. I could never dream of buying his first house. When I do buy it has to be both mine and my partners income. Life is brutal for the young. And posts like yours just make you look like a stupid out of touch entitled boomer.

Edited by jiltedjen
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 80's was a time of boom, go back further and you have mine workers living in houses owned by mine owners, paid in vouchers that they could exchange for food and clothing with a big mark up profit for the mine owner, that was of course after your rent was taken from your wages.... My point is you can't just take a snap shot in time as things have always changed. In the 80's women were paid appallingly compared to men with sexism rife. Thats really not where we want to head back too...

I totally agree the South and especially the SE it is crazy and more houses need to be built or mass migration into the country curtailed.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that some mums return to work because they have to but having a child is also a choice, and finances should be looked at when having a child... My parents when I was born were living off stuff planted in the garden, we didnt have holidays, clothes were functional and mine were mostly hand me downs... Times have changed with everyone wanting an Iphone, most families having 2 cars etc, a one wage earner family is still more than possible but sacrifices have to be made, just like they always have the big difference now is the 20 something generation not willing to make those sacrifices.

I would disagree, living in Southeast I don't know any families with 2 cars.

In fact my parents, surviving on my Dad's medium income had a lot bigger house, drove 2 cars and we took plenty of holidays. Nowadays I earn 3x average income and my wife 2x and yet we do not have the expendable income my parents used to have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pot..... Kettle..... Black...... What a pleasant fellow you are, I supposed you preferred the days of the woman staying at home, being seen as a second class citizen... Get back in your cave...

Isn't stay at home mother/wife the new aspirational career choice?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How utterly detached from reality are you? I'm not sure if your a boomer or not but you 100% sound like one. your looking at a situation and claiming its I-phones or the young 'not willing to make sacrifices' that just screams of someone not willing to come to terms that boomers had it piss easy and voted to destroy their own children's futures.

I have a good job way better than my dad at his age despite the economic headwinds. My mum never worked. I could never dream of buying his first house. When I do buy it has to be both mine and my partners income. Life is brutal for the young. And posts like yours just make you look like a stupid out of touch entitled boomer.

Haha you couldnt be further from the truth, im 33 I know because its my friends that moan about not having any money but always have the latest phone, post pics of them on international breaks and do have two cars on the drive....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I smell troll.

Well it would be cheaper living under a bridge than buying a house but I dont think I could put up with the noise... Nope I just dont think trying to take a story that has already been twisted and try to twist it even more helps any cause and is the reason so many people outside hpc see comments from hpc users as a joke and not taken seriously when the underline message is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is they have the choice of having kids, some that are not in the financial position delay or don't have kids...

Others don't delay.....can you blame them?

How many of those parents that "Have" to work have the latest Iphone, two cars on the drive, at least one international holiday a year, live in a bigger house than they really need?

One full time salary = approx ~£25,000.......iphone and two never, never monthly car repayments and a budget airline hol costs at most a couple of months wages.......size has no relevance to value or price.

All of those are choices that some people now stupidly think as necessity... There are some that are genuinely needing to work im not denying that but its not as many as you think...

It is as I think.....many now require two working wages to buy and pay for a basic freehold in many places. or rent a place that will never be theirs.

You could just as easily say that children that mingle with more kids on a regular basis by going to nurseries work better in teams and have better social skills... I find those skills in work further people more than educational achievements... A good mix of the two is what is needed and for most parents I think that is true....

Preschool children need their parents or mums in most cases.....if old enough to attend a nursery, a parent to take them and collect them, feed them and interact with them....a nursery only two to three hours a day....full time working is 7am to 6pm a day = 10 to 12 hours a day.

In the report how many hours per week are they classing full-time as often over 16hrs is seen as full-time.

16 hours a week is not full time.......16 hours will not pay the debts/bills.

For most parents I would argue working much more than 15hrs per week which is the threshold of free childcare it is not financially sound as the cost of childcare will be higher than earnings after tax.

Some mothers do not have the luxury of 15/16 hrs week, either full time or nothing......or they resort to benefits.

all apart from higher earning parents, in which case it is likely to be a choice to go to work.... This is likely to get more pronounced as the living wage comes in and childcare costs will have to rise.

High earning parent, can mean that one parent is able to care for children full time........fewer people because of escalating living/housing costs no longer have that choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is they have the choice of having kids, some that are not in the financial position delay or don't have kids...

Others don't delay.....can you blame them?

How many of those parents that "Have" to work have the latest Iphone, two cars on the drive, at least one international holiday a year, live in a bigger house than they really need?

One full time salary = approx ~£25,000.......iphone and two never, never monthly car repayments and a budget airline hol costs at most a couple of months wages.......size has no relevance to value or price.

All of those are choices that some people now stupidly think as necessity... There are some that are genuinely needing to work im not denying that but its not as many as you think...

It is as I think.....many now require two working wages to buy and pay for a basic freehold in many places. or rent a place that will never be theirs.

You could just as easily say that children that mingle with more kids on a regular basis by going to nurseries work better in teams and have better social skills... I find those skills in work further people more than educational achievements... A good mix of the two is what is needed and for most parents I think that is true....

Preschool children need their parents or mums in most cases.....if old enough to attend a nursery, a parent to take them and collect them, feed them and interact with them....a nursery only two to three hours a day....full time working is 7am to 6pm a day = 10 to 12 hours a day.

In the report how many hours per week are they classing full-time as often over 16hrs is seen as full-time.

16 hours a week is not full time.......16 hours will not pay the debts/bills.

For most parents I would argue working much more than 15hrs per week which is the threshold of free childcare it is not financially sound as the cost of childcare will be higher than earnings after tax.

Some mothers do not have the luxury of 15/16 hrs week, either full time or nothing......or they resort to benefits.

all apart from higher earning parents, in which case it is likely to be a choice to go to work.... This is likely to get more pronounced as the living wage comes in and childcare costs will have to rise.

High earning parent, can mean that one parent is able to care for children full time........fewer people because of escalating living/housing costs no longer have that choice.

The phones, cars, associate insurance etc all add up and can be the difference between mums having to work and not...

Could you point to the area in the report where it defines what it is calling full-time work, heavon forbid a newspaper might sensationalise a story by bending the stats...

Housing costs are only a part of the outgoings so blaming it all on house prices is you just taking a story and twisting it to suit your argument... it is these sorts of things that make hpc users a laughing stock outside hpc website and the important message is lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The phones, cars, associate insurance etc all add up and can be the difference between mums having to work and not...

Could you point to the area in the report where it defines what it is calling full-time work, heavon forbid a newspaper might sensationalise a story by bending the stats...

Housing costs are only a part of the outgoings so blaming it all on house prices is you just taking a story and twisting it to suit your argument... it is these sorts of things that make hpc users a laughing stock outside hpc website and the important message is lost.

You can laugh as much as you like......very many people do not find it funny. ;)

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.

  • 433 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.