Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest magnoliawalls

How Come Child Care Issues Are Rarely Linked To House Prices?

Recommended Posts

Guest magnoliawalls

Reading this article this morning, I felt irritated that childcare issues are so rarely linked to house price increases.

Parents generally want the security of owning their own home, and paying the mortgage on a family sized property needs two incomes. Having the choice of a traditional family life with one parent working part time or not at all is a luxury today.

As globalisation keeps wage inflation low things may not get any easier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this article this morning, I felt irritated that childcare issues are so rarely linked to house price increases.

Parents generally want the security of owning their own home, and paying the mortgage on a family sized property needs two incomes. Having the choice of a traditional family life with one parent working part time or not at all is a luxury today.

As globalisation keeps wage inflation low things may not get any easier...

I think this is a big problem. It comes down to whether we want a country full of 20 and early 30 somethings living a life of pleasing themselves, spending double incomes on family sized houses with no family in them, getting drunk, and buying fancy cars to impress each other, only to discover in their late 30s that they can't have children because they've left it too late, or if we want a country in which people who will actually end up wishing they'd had families can actually have them when biology best allows it, and can have the quality of housing and space that young children deserve.

I read last week that women are starting to freeze eggs to have children much later in life. This sort of thing is going to make things more and more intolerable for people that want to live a life of nurturing their children in suitable sized properties at an affordable cost, and do it while they are still young enough to run round the park after their kids.

I think a LOT of personal misery is being stored up for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree, my hubs earns many times the national average wage but because i won't send my children to the "baby farm" and actually enjoy bringing them up myself i can't affordb the comfortably home owning lifestyle we would like, but hom hum you can keep the Merc my babes are much more important and people are slowly starting to realise that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a big problem. It comes down to whether we want a country full of 20 and early 30 somethings living a life of pleasing themselves, spending double incomes on family sized houses with no family in them, getting drunk, and buying fancy cars to impress each other, only to discover in their late 30s that they can't have children because they've left it too late, or if we want a country in which people who will actually end up wishing they'd had families can actually have them when biology best allows it, and can have the quality of housing and space that young children deserve.

I read last week that women are starting to freeze eggs to have children much later in life. This sort of thing is going to make things more and more intolerable for people that want to live a life of nurturing their children in suitable sized properties at an affordable cost, and do it while they are still young enough to run round the park after their kids.

I think a LOT of personal misery is being stored up for the future.

I agree. And God only knows the long term health implications of this, especially as we know that the freezing process causes damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree, my hubs earns many times the national average wage but because i won't send my children to the "baby farm" and actually enjoy bringing them up myself i can't affordb the comfortably home owning lifestyle we would like, but hom hum you can keep the Merc my babes are much more important and people are slowly starting to realise that.

I'm sorry but if he earns many times the national average then you must be doing something wrong not to be able to afford the home owning lifestyle and the merc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but if he earns many times the national average then you must be doing something wrong not to be able to afford the home owning lifestyle and the merc.

Yeah we could buy a rabbit hutch 18 miles from Liverpool. Anything we would remotely consider at the moment is £400k and he earns £85k, so we can't afford it. We could stretch for it but as he went on his first holiday at 20, i feel he deserves to live a bit as well as work his ****** off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magnoliawalls

I'm sorry but if he earns many times the national average then you must be doing something wrong not to be able to afford the home owning lifestyle and the merc.

I think that just highlights how bad the situation is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that just highlights how bad the situation is.

Agreed. Apologies for being an **** in my previous post, on a salary of 85K you ought to be able to afford a 5-bed mini mansion, with a merc and a 4x4 to boot. I guess I likened you to my brother and his missus who earn about 100K between them and are always moaning about money. It guess it doesn't help that they've just bought a big house at the top of the market ("well we're going to be living here for 20 years"). Just carry on renting for now and wait for the house of cards to come crashing down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we could buy a rabbit hutch 18 miles from Liverpool. Anything we would remotely consider at the moment is £400k and he earns £85k, so we can't afford it. We could stretch for it but as he went on his first holiday at 20, i feel he deserves to live a bit as well as work his ****** off.

So, if in your position you can't, who can? Your hubbies earnings are of course the same as 2 persons earning 40k+ (ignoring higher tax rate implications as a single earner!).

Many mothers would prefer to at least work part time myself included (I do not want to be a fulltime mother) but this is not always an option, especially if one wants to be self sufficient over the longer term. In London currently, I can't see how the average earner can 'provide' for a family without both partners working full time or am I missing something?

Edited by Buffer Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

terrified

That is music to my ears hearing the natives are breeding. There is nothing

like see quality people who dont rob the system poviding the next generation.

It likes new labour wants to ensure the end of the native Britons.

:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of my bug-bears; the article says it best - "why bother having children?"

An early girlfriend of mine worked at a nursery - I saw the toddlers crying because they didn't want to leave the nursery nurses (aka surrogate mothers) each evening. All the parents were BMW/Merc driving professionals.

This was back in 1999/2000 so I think that the link in with house prices is loose at the moment but no doubt a ripple effect will be felt in the future as the double income mortgages have no doubt got many 20 & 30 somethings on an inflated housing 'ladder'.

Personally, I liken the situation to consumer debt - the reason to keep working and keep borrowing is the 'want it all now' attitude. "Hmmm, shall I nurture my children or stunt their emotional development by shipping them off to a nursery for 50 hours a week and get that new X5?......"

Edited by A late entrance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magnoliawalls

Personally, I liken the situation to consumer debt - the reason to keep working and keep borrowing is the 'want it all now' attitude. "Hmmm, shall I nurture my children or stunt their emotional development by shipping them off to a nursery for 50 hours a week and get that new X5?......"

Actually much of the media reporting reflects your attitude - with your awareness of house price increases can you not appreciate that many, if not most people do not have the luxury of choosing to raise their own children in their own home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually much of the media reporting reflects your attitude - with your awareness of house price increases can you not appreciate that many, if not most people do not have the luxury of choosing to raise their own children in their own home?

I certainly do - my sister in law has to work p/t, and they bought in '99!!

On re-reading my post, I was not clear at all.

I think that this problem is currently not a huge one, but rather something about to rear it's head over the next ten years or so - FTB couples wanting to start a family and hvaing bought a house since 2000/2001 is probably still a tiny demographic. However it is one that can only grow to much a bigger proportion and will be a continuing legacy even after any HP correction.

One of the long list of the negative "side effects" of HPI that will hurt people far more than any financial measure.

It is exactly this reason that I am determined that when I buy, it will be entirely on my own salary without any reliance on a second income. Fortunately, I don't have unrealistic aspirations and currently live in Birmingham so it should be possible in the event of 20-30% real term falls :ph34r:

Edited by A late entrance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a big problem. It comes down to whether we want a country full of 20 and early 30 somethings living a life of pleasing themselves, spending double incomes on family sized houses with no family in them, getting drunk, and buying fancy cars to impress each other, only to discover in their late 30s that they can't have children because they've left it too late, or if we want a country in which people who will actually end up wishing they'd had families can actually have them when biology best allows it, and can have the quality of housing and space that young children deserve.

I read last week that women are starting to freeze eggs to have children much later in life. This sort of thing is going to make things more and more intolerable for people that want to live a life of nurturing their children in suitable sized properties at an affordable cost, and do it while they are still young enough to run round the park after their kids.

I think a LOT of personal misery is being stored up for the future.

What misery?

You assume that everyone wants kids -- which is not true anymore.

And what is 'family sized' about a 3 bedroom house? Ok, you can squeeze a baby in the small room, but that is about it. If you kept a dog in such a small room, the RSPCA would probably read you the riot act :-D 3 bedrooms is just about enough for 2 adults, 4 is better.

In fact, smart people look at the expense and hassle of bringing up children[1], and the poor return from this. It is safer to invest the money you're saving into a pension - money will look after you in your old age, but kids, well, they sometimes visit you in the old people's home, but not too often, just enough so you consider not writing them out of your will.

It really is not good to be too sentimental here. Besides that, a childfree life is just more fun!

Cinnamon

[1] Avg. cost per child: one house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is not good to be too sentimental here. Besides that, a childfree life is just more fun!

Cinnamon

[1] Avg. cost per child: one house.

It's a fair point, but unfortunately biology gets in the way for most of us and the natural desire to reproduce rules over many (myself included).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What misery?

You assume that everyone wants kids -- which is not true anymore.

And what is 'family sized' about a 3 bedroom house? Ok, you can squeeze a baby in the small room, but that is about it. If you kept a dog in such a small room, the RSPCA would probably read you the riot act :-D 3 bedrooms is just about enough for 2 adults, 4 is better.

In fact, smart people look at the expense and hassle of bringing up children[1], and the poor return from this. It is safer to invest the money you're saving into a pension - money will look after you in your old age, but kids, well, they sometimes visit you in the old people's home, but not too often, just enough so you consider not writing them out of your will.

It really is not good to be too sentimental here. Besides that, a childfree life is just more fun!

Cinnamon

[1] Avg. cost per child: one house.

Sorry, but you're making incorrect logical steps there in your post.

I am not assuming that everyone wants kids - where did I say that? What I am trying to point out is that I think a lot of people do want kids, although a larger and larger portion of those are fooling themselves that they don't or are not growing up intellectually fast enough to realise that they will do, before they become barren through age.

And what is your point about a 3 bedroom house? I didn't mention 3 bedrooms. But only about 10% of all UK housing stock has more than 3 bedrooms (look it up), so if you think that 3 bedrooms is insufficient for having kids, then a lot of people would obviously prove you wrong in that.

And WHAT ON EARTH are you going on about with phrases like "poor return" when describing having children? IT'S NOT A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION! Wake up! If you can't understand that, whether you want to have them yourself or not, then you've got a bit of growing up to do.

You claim that child free life is more fun. Just like all those drunken, flashy 20 and 30 year olds I mentioned in my post no doubt. Well, I don't know if you have kids (although I suspect from the content of your post you don't). But I do, and so I have direct experience of life without and with them. And I'm here to tell you, that I, and all the people I know with kids, think that life is more fun with them.

Cheers

Edited by Levy process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magnoliawalls

I think that this problem is currently not a huge one, but rather something about to rear it's head over the next ten years or so - FTB couples wanting to start a family and hvaing bought a house since 2000/2001 is probably still a tiny demographic. However it is one that can only grow to much a bigger proportion and will be a continuing legacy even after any HP correction.

One of the long list of the negative "side effects" of HPI that will hurt people far more than any financial measure.

Good point - whatever happens to house prices now we are yet to see the damage the HPI caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of my bug-bears; the article says it best - "why bother having children?"

An early girlfriend of mine worked at a nursery - I saw the toddlers crying because they didn't want to leave the nursery nurses (aka surrogate mothers) each evening. All the parents were BMW/Merc driving professionals.

This was back in 1999/2000 so I think that the link in with house prices is loose at the moment but no doubt a ripple effect will be felt in the future as the double income mortgages have no doubt got many 20 & 30 somethings on an inflated housing 'ladder'.

Personally, I liken the situation to consumer debt - the reason to keep working and keep borrowing is the 'want it all now' attitude. "Hmmm, shall I nurture my children or stunt their emotional development by shipping them off to a nursery for 50 hours a week and get that new X5?......"

A concerning and slightly incorrect post.

Recent research indicates very little benefit if any in tying your children to your apron strings. Nurturing your children is and should not be the sole responsibility of the family.

I would also be interested in seeing how the those toddlers have developed in the last 6 or 7 years: if they are like the 11 year knackers at my old school, I should imagine they will have twoc'ed their first car and had their first termination by now. However, given that their shamefully BMW-driving parent cared enough to organise proper childcare, perhaps they're rather more well balanced members of society.

Dr aussieboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you're making incorrect logical steps there in your post.

I am not assuming that everyone wants kids - where did I say that? What I am trying to point out is that I think a lot of people do want kids, although a larger and larger portion of those are fooling themselves that they don't or are not growing up intellectually fast enough to realise that they will do, before they become barren through age.

Erm, most people 'want kids' as a hazy, romantic idea. The reality is instant poverty and the end of your personal, private life as you know it.

For women, there are also a number of health issues involved -- having kids is dangerous and painful, with possible long term consequences that are not fun!. As a 'nullipara' you simply live longer and healthier.

There are many woman (and men) who have been thinking about this rationally, and have come to the conclusion that they really do not want kids, but have other plans for their lives. And why not?

As for growing up intellectually fast enough, or fooling themselves into not having kids, I doubt it. I could say the same about the people who just produce kids without worrying about the consequences, but to me they are just people who have a different priority in life and are prepared to sacrifice the best time of their own lives to having kids. I wish them all the best, especially if they do not move next door and inflict their kids on me :rolleyes:

And for the intellectual bit of motherhood, to be specific, I have never found the company of babbling children intellectually stimulating. Gagagogo and talking about the latest hideous plastic toy, or why the sky is blue has never held much attraction for me :)

And what is your point about a 3 bedroom house? I didn't mention 3 bedrooms. But only about 10% of all UK housing stock has more than 3 bedrooms (look it up), so if you think that 3 bedrooms is insufficient for having kids, then a lot of people would obviously prove you wrong in that.

Hey, it is perfectly possible to have 12 kids in just one hut If you upgrade your hovel with shelves, you might even double that figure. :P

Living space is not merely a place to sleep. And the '3rd' bedroom in most UK houses is just about a storage room, not really a place where you'd expect a child to play, study and sleep.

And WHAT ON EARTH are you going on about with phrases like "poor return" when describing having children? IT'S NOT A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION! Wake up! If you can't understand that, whether you want to have them yourself or not, then you've got a bit of growing up to do.

It isn't? One used to have children to look after you in your old age. Nowadays, the most they do is send a postcard, visit for a short while at Xmas (if you're lucky) and when you get too old, they abandon you to the care home. Tell me, what kind of 'love' is this?

Frankly, my cat has more love to give than most kids. If you do not believe me, try working in an old people's home for a while, you will see so many people who have been abandoned by their children, after they did everything for them.

Oh, did I mention that bringing up a child is as costly as buying a house these days? If you invest this money instead (and also, use your gained free time to make some more) you can retire in style, instead of slumming it in the local 'Bedsores R Us' care home run by your local council.

You claim that child free life is more fun. Just like all those drunken, flashy 20 and 30 year olds I mentioned in my post no doubt. Well, I don't know if you have kids (although I suspect from the content of your post you don't). But I do, and so I have direct experience of life without and with them. And I'm here to tell you, that I, and all the people I know with kids, think that life is more fun with them.

I'm flashy, I'm 42, have a big 3 bedroom house that I rent, and sometimes, I get drunk too(shock horror). I'm childfree, my house is tidy and smells nice (and not of babyshit, eww), and I can own nice things, leave cash and alcohol about the place without worrying, do fun stuff and my time and life is my own -- I am free.

I've also looked after kids at times in my life, and so, I do speak from some experience here too when I say that it is hassle incarnate.

Most people I know with kids like to believe that life is more fun with them (what else can they do!) but, when they visit me, they also say how much they envy my freedom to live as I please, and how much less hassle I have since I do not need to worry about schools, clothes, behaviour and all the other complexities that having children introduces into your life.

Cinnamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, most people 'want kids' as a hazy, romantic idea. The reality is instant poverty and the end of your personal, private life as you know it. etc etc

Cinnamon,

It's a personal choice. I have a child - sometimes it's lovely, sometimes difficult, always it's hard work - I certainly don't imagine it's the fun option. But that's the choice I've made. I don't go around telling people without kids they are immature idiots, because I don't believe that, although you're doing your best to appear that way. So please don't impose your value judgments on me and I won't impose mine on you.

And if you can only rate kids according to the lifetime expenditure and old age care options then it's probably a good thing you're not a parent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A concerning and slightly incorrect post.

Recent research indicates very little benefit if any in tying your children to your apron strings. Nurturing your children is and should not be the sole responsibility of the family.

I would also be interested in seeing how the those toddlers have developed in the last 6 or 7 years: if they are like the 11 year knackers at my old school, I should imagine they will have twoc'ed their first car and had their first termination by now. However, given that their shamefully BMW-driving parent cared enough to organise proper childcare, perhaps they're rather more well balanced members of society.

Dr aussieboy

I think you may have taken this slightly the wrong way - when I say lack of nurture, I mean simply through direct parent/child contact. A large proportion of kids at that nursery were there from 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday. Quite a few parents had asked the owner to open on a Saturday morning!

Great for the child's interpersonal skills, but not so good for the problems highlighted in the initial few posts.

Also bear in mind that child care is a minimum wage shithouse of a job, my girlfriends colleagues were the type that I struggled to believe could provide intellectual stimulation for a child, nevermind an adult.

Or to put it simply - the kind of bad parenting that manefests itself in mental illness (depression, self-harm, eating disorders etc. etc.) rather than a healthy bit of ram raiding or scrumping for cars. Excuse the extreme exageration there but it's all I could think of to separate the two :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cinnamon,

It's a personal choice. I have a child - sometimes it's lovely, sometimes difficult, always it's hard work - I certainly don't imagine it's the fun option. But that's the choice I've made. I don't go around telling people without kids they are immature idiots, because I don't believe that, although you're doing your best to appear that way. So please don't impose your value judgments on me and I won't impose mine on you.

Hey, re-read my post and the post I'm replying to please. There is a difference inbetween quoting someone and stating something.

The original poster, 'Levy process', I replied to was saying that people without kids are immature idiots who really would love to have kids.

And if you can only rate kids according to the lifetime expenditure and old age care options then it's probably a good thing you're not a parent...

Had you read my post carefully, you would have seen that there are far more problems to childrearing than just your security in old age.

Part of the housing misery in the UK exists because of the school league tables(as prices are much influenced by them), and the fact that the UK housing stock isn't suited to bringing up a modern family in a way that does not destroy the parents right to a personal life and privacy.

I did not point that out explicitly, but, if you for one moment think about the implication of parenthood, you realise that once you decide to have a kid, no part of your life will be untouched, and people around you expect you to take second place after your kids happiness. Having a child is a big decision, it is risky and expensive, and this is the reason why so many people like me choose to keep things simple and enjoy our lives without kids.

I reserve the right to say so and to be happy about being childfree, without a guilt trip about living in a nice big, tidy and clean house or 'missing out on the real life'.

As for trying to make out that it is a good thing that I'm not a parent, well, as you pointed out in your post, imposing value judgements on people isn't something you'd do, so I disregard that statement :)

Cinnamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great for the child's interpersonal skills, but not so good for the problems highlighted in the initial few posts.

Also bear in mind that child care is a minimum wage shithouse of a job, my girlfriends colleagues were the type that I struggled to believe could provide intellectual stimulation for a child, nevermind an adult.

Why would a nursery be great for a child's interpersonal skills if half the kids there can't even talk? I decided against sending my eldest to nursery because I thought he was intellectually too advanced. Eventually it spawned off an entire home schooling project. None of my children have ever attended a school.

Part of the housing misery in the UK exists because of the school league tables(as prices are much influenced by them),

Parents are so naive for holding so much faith and trust in league tables. They don't realise that schools are no longer teaching kids but training them to pass SATS exams. If your kids want an education then buy them some books. If they want paper qualifications then enter them in as a private candidate.

and the fact that the UK housing stock isn't suited to bringing up a modern family in a way that does not destroy the parents right to a personal life and privacy.

Could you elaborate on this one? Is there something seriously wrong with the design and architecture of British houses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parents are so naive for holding so much faith and trust in league tables. They don't realise that schools are no longer teaching kids but training them to pass SATS exams. If your kids want an education then buy them some books. If they want paper qualifications then enter them in as a private candidate.

That may be true, but fact is that 'location' more often than not refers to 'in desirable school catchment area'. Like it or not, a house in a neighbourhood with a good school costs way more than one with a school that is bad.

Could you elaborate on this one? Is there something seriously wrong with the design and architecture of British houses?

I stated that the british housing stock is unsuitable for modern family life. Here is why:

The majority was built when people had less need to individual spaces and when people had less need of space for their lives(clothes, books, sportkits, hobby posessions, pictures, steros, TV's, etc...). Most houses are rather tiny in terms of dimensions, and the 3 bedroom house is the most common, so lets assume that this as the basis.

One bathroom is definitly not sufficient if both parents are professionals, and when you add kids and female teens to the bathroom load, it does get somewhat slummy there.

So, two bathrooms are the minimum to have, unless you want to tolerate a permanent major annoyance in your life.

Next, let's talk about personal space. Most adults nowadays depend on having that and most are very reluctant to give it up. Most have so much personal stuff and memorabilia that giving it up isn't possible! So, assume that each adult needs a room for themselves, this is even more needed if one partner snores.

So, if you assume 1 child, then your kid is going to end up occupying the storage room (aka 3rd bedroom) alternativly, one of you can cram into the small room and give the large room to the kid.

Where will you put the second child and all the toys and equipment a child needs nowadays? Stacking this stuff is one answer, but lack of space is the main reason why people live in a 'mess' -- it is impossible to keep cramped spaces clean, you keep falling over whatever is blocking and so on, which in turn stresses everyone!

And once your kids get older, they need their own room for their personal development, so, you then need to upgrade anyway, or sacrifice your privacy and risk your relationship by sharing one room[1].

As a previous poster pointed out, only 10% of the UK housing stock have 4+ bedrooms, hence, most parents end up sharing a bedroom.

With people nowadays being very aware of the quality of life and keen to always improve or at least maintain theirs, this is a further reason for people to be weary of starting a family.

So, if we want people to view family life as something to aspire to which also allows them a personal life and comfort, we should change the housing offering, insted of asking people to stunt their lives by trying to live on top of each other, like the frugal previous generations that once eked out a living in the local factories.

The 3 bedroom houses we're talking about were built with such families in mind, and yes, I think that 100 years later, life has changed and the architecture is now unsuitable.

Cinnamon

[1] This is anectodotal, but, all couples I know who managed 20+ years together also have seperate bedrooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at the risk of turn this into mumsnet, i have two points to make.

Firstly that people do not need a bedroom each and a bathroom for every two people, they are nice to have (although a pain to clean) but you don't need them.

As for all the rubbish we seem to aquire and therefore need somewhere to put I have found that you fill the space you have. When we lived in a 2 bed flat we had no space and were floor to ceiling toys, prams, books etc. Now we live in a 4 bed detached and guess what we still have no room to swing a cat.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 337 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.