Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Prude

Calling Worldly Wise Hpcers

Recommended Posts

As someone who would rather go camping in Devon rather than have 2 weeks in Benidorm, I have limited knowledge of the way in which other countires operate.

So what I'd like to know is which other nations have (and which definately haven't) bought into the idea that to buy a house requires 2 full time incomes as FTBs?

Those of us who have children know how your core values change when you become a parent - work/material gain/self indulgence all take a step back on your priority list.

Can women or even modern fathers choose to be available for their children while they are young anymore, or is it all day care from 6mths onwards? Is there a way back to giving young couples the choice of staying at home if one of them wishes to? Will prices adjust to allow this or has the idea that the mortage should be affordable on one of the couples wages gone forever?

I'm sure that there must be nations out there where they just wouldn't allow this to become the normal position. So which countries still value family life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that the first families to send their females off to work must be far ahead of the pack now due to the accumulated benefit from their efforts.

Will it ever go back to 1 wage households? Will women want to go back to the kitchen?

Can women or even modern fathers choose to be available for their children while they are young anymore?

I stay at home quite a lot. My kids seem to think this is normal for a Dad. BTL might get you there too, you just have to try!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

I'm quite old-fahioned for a 29yo. I would like to be able to support my (imaginary) wife & kids on a single income, even if it means going camping on the west coast of Scotland or in Britanny for a few years. On the other hand I would also welcome being supported by my wife, while I brought up the kids, if she was more "successful" than me.

I honestly believe children do better when looked after by their own parents. (I used to think it odd that a couple living next door to my parents, husband was a lawyer or something, wife a child psychologist, used to leave their kids with the nanny all day, while they went out to work - her with someone else's sprogs).

Anyway, I do think it's going to cause problems in the future if your kids never see their parents. See numerous posts on dawn to dusk schools, free childcare from 6 months etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that the first families to send their females off to work must be far ahead of the pack now due to the accumulated benefit from their efforts.

Will it ever go back to 1 wage households? Will women want to go back to the kitchen?

Can women or even modern fathers choose to be available for their children while they are young anymore?

I stay at home quite a lot. My kids seem to think this is normal for a Dad. BTL might get you there too, you just have to try!

I believe that many women would like the choice to stay at home but are currently denied it economically. The benefits are clear when you consider the current situation;

+ kids in nursery from a very young age learn to compete for attention from adults who they have no real bond with. They are 'managed' daily not enriched and all parties know this leading to a sense of guilt and overcompensation materially on the part of affluent parents.

+ Kids of school age without a parent at the school gates to show interest in their day.

+ Pre school and after school taking away their free time.

+ Ready meals and take aways as the norm.

+ Shattered parents

+ Rising levels of family stress and breakdown

+ Latch key kids

the list is longer if others care to contribute

There are no benefits from the current situation - it does not meet the natural needs of children and is especially damaging to very young children who are seperated from mothers as they are forced back to work after a very short maternity period.

How can FTBs BTL when they are finding it hard enough to even BUY in the first place. Why would they want the extra stress of tenants/voids/non existent yields etc.. on top of everything else?

The question remains - has the whole world gone this way or are there some sane nations remaining?

Edited by Prude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no benefits from the current situation - it does not meet the natural needs of children and is especially damaging to very young children who are seperated from mothers as they are forced back to work after a very short maternity period.

Indeed. Humans aren't designed to abandon their kids after a few weeks or months: you can ignore reality if you like, but sooner or later it comes back to bite you in the ass.

This country is storing up huge problems for the future by valuing SUVs and fake 'careers' (working to make tat so you can afford to buy the tat that other people make) over kids.

Edited by MarkG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite old-fahioned for a 29yo. I would like to be able to support my (imaginary) wife & kids on a single income, even if it means going camping on the west coast of Scotland or in Britanny for a few years. On the other hand I would also welcome being supported by my wife, while I brought up the kids, if she was more "successful" than me.

I honestly believe children do better when looked after by their own parents. (I used to think it odd that a couple living next door to my parents, husband was a lawyer or something, wife a child psychologist, used to leave their kids with the nanny all day, while they went out to work - her with someone else's sprogs).

Anyway, I do think it's going to cause problems in the future if your kids never see their parents. See numerous posts on dawn to dusk schools, free childcare from 6 months etc.

Check out that Freakonomics book... it's the peers, not the parents that count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a myth that working women is relatively recent thing. The pre 1970s stay at home mum was mainly a middle class phenomenon with the majority of ordinary women in the workplace long before. Most families didnt have a choice as to whether mum stayed at home: it was an economic neccessity that she worked.

Indeed. Humans aren't designed to abandon their kids after a few weeks or months: you can ignore reality if you like, but sooner or later it comes back to bite you in the ass.

This country is storing up huge problems for the future by valuing SUVs and fake 'careers' (working to make tat so you can afford to buy the tat that other people make) over kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pre 1970s stay at home mum was mainly a middle class phenomenon with the majority of ordinary women in the workplace long before.

Then why did I and most of my friends grow up in working class families where the mothers stayed at home, at least until their kids started school? Many had part-time jobs in school hours, but they were there to send the kids off in the morning and there when they got home in the afternoon.

Edited by MarkG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why did I and most of my friends grow up in working class families where the mothers stayed at home, at least until their kids started school? Many had part-time jobs in school hours, but they were there to send the kids off in the morning and there when they got home in the afternoon.

When I was a youngster (50s and 60s) every kid's mum was at home to take them to school and pick them up. Many had part time jobs that fitted in with school hours and wouldn't have dreamt of not being there for the kids. The term "latch key kids" was coined for the very rare exception to this.

Mind you, most working class people lived in council houses then, and didn't aspire to buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...............................

So what I'd like to know is which other nations have (and which definately haven't) bought into the idea that to buy a house requires 2 full time incomes as FTBs?

...............................

I'm sure that there must be nations out there where they just wouldn't allow this to become the normal position. So which countries still value family life?

Here in Hong Kong its the norm for both adults to work throughout a kids upbringing. The main difference that I see to the UK is mainly the grandparents are brought into help look after the kid (along with a maid) and I cant see a drawback. The kid gets loved by the granparents during the day and by the parents at all other times. The grandparents get well chuffed (it gives them something to do) and the parents both need to work to afford the hellishly expensive property that is here in Hong Kong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Hong Kong its the norm for both adults to work throughout a kids upbringing. The main difference that I see to the UK is mainly the grandparents are brought into help look after the kid (along with a maid) and I cant see a drawback. The kid gets loved by the granparents during the day and by the parents at all other times. The grandparents get well chuffed (it gives them something to do) and the parents both need to work to afford the hellishly expensive property that is here in Hong Kong.

Many grandparents wouldn't be (and aren't) "well chuffed" to be landed with the grandkids as a matter of routine that encroaches on their plans for retirement. It is a different thing to offer occasionally but when it becomes a job (an expectation) then many resist.

To answer Doog - I would agree with MArkG - my brother and I were brought up in a small 2 up 2down terraced privately owned. My dad was/is a bricklayer and my mum never went to work after we were born despite the fact that she had been to grammar school. This is a choice that I am eternally grateful for as we remain a very close family. In the case of my own family (I have 4 kids) during the 10 years that they were, individually and collectively, under 5 only I worked but took all the O/T I could get.

The choices that my parents made and that my wife and I have made for our family will be (and are being) denied to young couples at present.

To answer Aussieboy - to say that the major influences are the peers, then to just not be around for majority of each day is to wholly expose children to the influence of whatever random peer group they are currently with (pre school - after school - day care - on the streets - whatever) This is to completely abdicate responsibility. Children won't be wholly what you try to make them but they are what you allow them to become.

Edited by Prude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my mum was a stay at home mum, and my Dad was a lorry driver for Dairy Crest(or Quinceys as it used to be called!).

All our clothes were from charity shops and poundstretchers and we had caravan holidays in Devon.

I wouldn't swap that childhood for having what many kids have these days ie,expensive trainers but not seeing Mum and Dad.

People put too much emphasis on having things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite old-fahioned for a 29yo. I would like to be able to support my (imaginary) wife & kids on a single income, even if it means going camping on the west coast of Scotland or in Britanny for a few years.

All our clothes were from charity shops and poundstretchers and we had caravan holidays in Devon.

As someone who would rather go camping in Devon rather than have 2 weeks in Benidorm, I have limited knowledge of the way in which other countires operate.

Some of you seem to be under the bizarre illusion that taking a holiday in the UK is cheaper than going abroad! Maybe that was true 25 years ago but not any more.

frugalista

Edited by frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of you seem to be under the bizarre illusion that taking a holiday in the UK is cheaper than going abroad!

Maybe not if you're single, but I'd be surprised if flying four kids to Spain is cheaper than driving them to Devon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SNIP

To answer Aussieboy - to say that the major influences are the peers, then to just not be around for majority of each day is to wholly expose children to the influence of whatever random peer group they are currently with (pre school - after school - day care - on the streets - whatever) This is to completely abdicate responsibility. Children won't be wholly what you try to make them but they are what you allow them to become.

Random exposure to peers is what will happen when your kids go to school whether you do your fretting at home or at work. It makes no difference. The stay at home mum lobby seems nothing more than an excuse for Libby Purves to behave smugly and make working mothers feel guilty (always a nice thing to do to single mothers who have little choice). My old mum went out to work... and it never did me any harm (etc)

And don't forget to ensure that they have the MMR jab. www.badscience.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The stay at home mum lobby seems nothing more than an excuse for Libby Purves to behave smugly and make working mothers feel guilty

As they should. There are few jobs more important than bringing up the next generation to be decent people.

(always a nice thing to do to single mothers who have little choice).

Right, because they had no choice about getting pregnant by some guy who had no interest in looking after his kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

Some of you seem to be under the bizarre illusion that taking a holiday in the UK is cheaper than going abroad! Maybe that was true 25 years ago but not any more.

frugalista

Staying in a hotel in the UK is damn expensive, staying on a campsite, or camping rough is pretty cheap.

Random exposure to peers is what will happen when your kids go to school whether you do your fretting at home or at work. It makes no difference. The stay at home mum lobby seems nothing more than an excuse for Libby Purves to behave smugly and make working mothers feel guilty (always a nice thing to do to single mothers who have little choice). My old mum went out to work... and it never did me any harm (etc)

And don't forget to ensure that they have the MMR jab. www.badscience.net

I do take issue with you about the peers thing, if you are with your kid for the first 5 years, then for most of the day during the next 10, you will have more influence than if you see them for a couple of hours each night.

Ben Goldacre is great! It's great fun watching him dismember someones crappy "research".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As they should. There are few jobs more important than bringing up the next generation to be decent people.

Right, because they had no choice about getting pregnant by some guy who had no interest in looking after his kids.

Would say that one job more important than bringing up the next generation is to generate one in the first place (sequential, see?). Perhaps, MarkG, to conform to a infallible model world, only those willing to commit to a lifetime of marriage should be able to get a license to reproduce, just like it was in the good old pre-Henry VIII days. Or in Ireland now. Oh, for your crystal ball!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out that Freakonomics book... it's the peers, not the parents that count.

Random exposure to peers is what will happen when your kids go to school whether you do your fretting at home or at work. It makes no difference. The stay at home mum lobby seems nothing more than an excuse for Libby Purves to behave smugly and make working mothers feel guilty (always a nice thing to do to single mothers who have little choice). My old mum went out to work... and it never did me any harm (etc)

And don't forget to ensure that they have the MMR jab. www.badscience.net

Would say that one job more important than bringing up the next generation is to generate one in the first place (sequential, see?). Perhaps, MarkG, to conform to a infallible model world, only those willing to commit to a lifetime of marriage should be able to get a license to reproduce, just like it was in the good old pre-Henry VIII days. Or in Ireland now. Oh, for your crystal ball!

Not sure how much love and nurturing you got Aussie boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would say that one job more important than bringing up the next generation is to generate one in the first place (sequential, see?).

Not if they're just pumping out another generation of chav scum. We want a generation of decent kids, not worthless wasters of lives who'll never do anything more productive than collect their dole cheques and beat innocent people to death so they can film it on their cellphones.

Perhaps, MarkG, to conform to a infallible model world, only those willing to commit to a lifetime of marriage should be able to get a license to reproduce, just like it was in the good old pre-Henry VIII days.

We don't need yet another license, just to discourage people from having kids outside marriage, rather than rewarding them with 'free' money and houses. We used to do that for centuries, and, oddly, for much of that time we had far less social problems than we do now.

It's hardly a surprise that so many sociopaths were born to single parents: in fact, it's well documented that kids of single mothers are far more likely to grow up to be criminals or dole-scum than kids of married parents. I honestly don't understand how _anyone_ can defend single mothers these days.

Edited by MarkG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SNIP

It's hardly a surprise that so many sociopaths were born to single parents: in fact, it's well documented that kids of single mothers are far more likely to grow up to be criminals or dole-scum than kids of married parents. I honestly don't understand how _anyone_ can defend single mothers these days.

Not so, not so. Is those children whose parents were denied access to abortions that grow up unwanted, un-nurtered and "dole scum". And how can someone defend single mothers these day? Perhaps someone who has met some... or was the child of one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that the first families to send their females off to work must be far ahead of the pack now due to the accumulated benefit from their efforts.

Will it ever go back to 1 wage households? Will women want to go back to the kitchen?

Can women or even modern fathers choose to be available for their children while they are young anymore?

I stay at home quite a lot.

More to the point, will you ever get a real job? I'm going to open a book on this one folks.... odds on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that the first families to send their females off to work must be far ahead of the pack now due to the accumulated benefit from their efforts.

Will it ever go back to 1 wage households? Will women want to go back to the kitchen?

Can women or even modern fathers choose to be available for their children while they are young anymore?

I stay at home quite a lot. My kids seem to think this is normal for a Dad. BTL might get you there too, you just have to try!

Good goad my friend..

but BTL does work, it does not at todays prices. Not where I am..

also the very obvious large drops in property prices would make me a morron... :)

My parent have a BTL, bought 8 years ago and for cash.

they do not understand those claiming to be rich with a wealth that disapears by the perspective of a conversation and a debt that no income can scratch and only struggles to meet the interest of..

No more then the rest of us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received plenty... but I'm a bit of a rationalist too.

So how have you rationalised the good in the current situation? How can it be rational to deny women(men) the choice to be around for their child in its formative years and beyond?

Are house prices forcing Australians to accept the new deal about being a parent then? Are they happy to give up their babies everyday to pay the bank? Is this the way it is going to be for ever more? If the needs of people don't matter we might as well give up now. One thing's for sure the market makers don't give a ****.

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.

  • 341 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.