Friday, Oct 09, 2009

Social Costs of High House Prices

BBC News: Focus on women's work needs urged

The YouGov poll interviewed 4,690 men and women and found just 12% of the mothers wanted to work full-time. - Ah but with house prices based on 4 x assumed double incomes, women will just have to carry on working full time.

Posted by need-a-crash @ 02:49 PM (1558 views)
Add Comment
Report Article

39 Comments

1. mark wadsworth said...

According to the Home-Owner-Ist world view, that is A Good Thing - instead of wasting time having babies, they can go and work and keep house prices up. In any event, they'll need a lot more nurses to provide the free old age care for wealthy pensioners to enable their heirs to inherit their properties.

Plus, Britain is an overcrowded island, so fewer babies = lower population, and lower population = fewer houses being built to preserve The Hallowed Greenbelt, for future generations who obviously will never be born, because on Planet Home-Owner, nobody ever dies and nobody is ever born.

In the mythical past which according to Home-Owner-Ists has always persisted, young people just worked and saved to "get on the ladder" and there was no property taxation and no new houses were ever built, so what are today's priced-out generation whining about?

(I tell you, writing propaganda for the Home-Owners' Party is just as easy as writing for the Communist Party or the BNP, it just flows naturally).

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:03PM Report Comment
 

2. str 2007 said...

But the minister for women, Harriet Harman, said that working "doesn't mean that you're not a real woman".

But IMO does mean you're not a real mother.

Can't believe so many go through the effort of having a child/ren and sling them in full time care at 6 months old.

A few are forced to for financial reasons, most that do choose to through IMO their own self greed. Most children under the age of 5 don't really mind what size house they live in or whether mum's got a 4 wheel drive, or whether or not they holiday abroad twice a year.

But I suspect most would prefer to have mum around.

And without mum who's there to get my supper on the table by 6.00pm.

Right, that's got that off my chest. No doubt I've upset everyone.

So while I'm at it - stop taking your kids out of school in term time to go on holiday. You might not care or think it makes any difference, but the rest of the class have to sit there while the teacher stops and goes over everything your kids missed last week which is relevant to what all the other children are trying to learn this week,.

Oh yes and while I'm at it. Please judge a roundabout as you drive upto it. The dashed lines on the entrance to a round about mean give way. Not stop, look and then realise there was nothing coming.

Rant over - thank you.

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:27PM Report Comment
 

3. str 2007 said...

Sorry Sarah

I've strayed from houses again.

Didn't mention charts though - D'oh, there I go again.

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:30PM Report Comment
 

4. mark wadsworth said...

I'm not sure whether STR was parodying H-O Propaganda or not, but that's another good one: "Seeing as today's mothers only sling their children into care at 6 months to rush back to work to keep up with the mortgage repayments, they might as well not have kids at all. Back in the mythical past, women stayed at home with their kids. Even though houses were just as expensive then."

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:36PM Report Comment
 

5. crunchy said...

4. mark wadsworth

Have you ever wondered or thought about the funders and pushers of the Women's Lib Movement?

Could it have been the same lot that made women the niggers of the world. Ah John Lennon.

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:56PM Report Comment
 

6. mark wadsworth said...

@ Crunchy, now that's what I call a conspiracy theory!

"Wimmin's Lib was invented by the Home-Owner-Ist movement to keep house prices as high as possible."

In the mirror world of Home-Owner-Ism, anything is possible, I suppose.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:01PM Report Comment
 

7. crunchy said...

Mark that was a bitter disappointment, but I am sure you will do some worthwhile research in secrecy. lol

We were all meant to be working a three day a week by now. Lifestyle without the hype or slavery.

Get my point now?

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:09PM Report Comment
 

8. stillthinking said...

Double the number of workers on an island and watch property prices.

Women have to work now, even if they would rather look after their children, which is why indigenous Brits have the same population projection as red squirrels.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:10PM Report Comment
 

9. tenant super said...

Women wanted careers, and this has contributed to the stoking of asset prices, in particular housing. So now, a woman cannot be a house-wife/full-time mother/ homemaker or whatever your preferred term, even when she wishes to.

This is why feminism will go down as one of the biggest own-goals in history.

That said, myself and Mr. T.S. earn almost identical salaries and have decided he can be the stay-at-home house husband/ full-time dad on the grounds that I like my job and he doesn't!

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:10PM Report Comment
 

10. ontheotherhand said...

What started as a struggle to ensure that women had the right and the opportunity to work has evolved into women having the obligation to work so that the family has enough money to buy a house and car and live. Once a critical mass of mothers went out to work, everone finds two salaries multiplied up for a mortgage competing for every house. To keep up with the Jones's she HAS to work. A man and wife who are both tube drivers in London get 40,000 each. To get the same after tax take home income a man would have to earn 90,000. Study hard, university, MBA, late hours and get rewarded with 51% tax, or just press 'go' and 'stop' and send the wife out to work. NB. All of the work at home does not count to GDP, but the replacement cleaner and childcare does count. Without that effect over the last 25 years and longer hours, UK's GDP growth is pathetic.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:19PM Report Comment
 

11. enuii said...

Anyone got a graph correlating the rise in house price multiples of the average wage and the number of married or co-habiting Women in full time employment as I'm 100% certain there is a correlation.

I rather suspect that the inflation of housing in this country was the unintended consequence of this social trend which is the inverse of Marks quote above and those of us with a single household wage are also the collateral damage of this trend/government policy which has effectively lowered the living standards of the single and single income families.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:20PM Report Comment
 

12. mark wadsworth said...

@ Tenant Super, why doesn't Mr TS like your job? Tell us more!

@ Enuii, tut tut, on Planet Home-Owner, the husband has a "proper job" and can take care of his family without the Mrs having to work. It's about "taking responsibility", i.e. having bought a house more than ten years ago.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:24PM Report Comment
 

13. Rip_off Van Winkel said...

women around the country are going to be very angry when they find they have been used as a vehicle to extend the UK's debt based economy at their own childs expense. And as it collapses they will find it has been all a waste of sweat & tears.....just another dupe who belived the media lies about 'empowerment'.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:31PM Report Comment
 

14. tenant super said...

Well, of course I meant he doesn't like his job (for a quango in Westminster) but it is true, he doesn't like mine much either. He thinks I spend far too much time hob-nobbing with good-looking clerics.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:33PM Report Comment
 

15. will said...

I blame Emily Pankhurst.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:35PM Report Comment
 

16. shipbuilder said...

Good points made on this thread. Of course as crunchy hints at, the great unspoken truth is that few men like their jobs and would prefer a fuller life as well. I suspect neither sex will get what they want in the Great Universal Duty of Economic Expansion.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:36PM Report Comment
 

17. Crunchy said...

11. enuii That's how you start some secret research. Hard numbers first. Good man!

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:36PM Report Comment
 

18. crunchy said...

Love it. Top man 11. enuii

The hard numbers and dates are where I start. Enjoy! Goodnight.

Base Rates
0.50% 0.25% 1.00% Indices
£163,533 £161,816 > More stats House Price Crash powered byStretch Follow us on Twitter RSS home
graphs
base rates
resources
books
blog
wiki
forum
boss

Friday, Oct 09, 2009Social Costs of High House PricesBBC News: Focus on women's work needs urged
The YouGov poll interviewed 4,690 men and women and found just 12% of the mothers wanted to work full-time. - Ah but with house prices based on 4 x assumed double incomes, women will just have to carry on working full time.

Posted by need-a-crash @ 02:49 PM (227 views) Add Comment
Report Article 15 Comments1. mark wadsworth said...According to the Home-Owner-Ist world view, that is A Good Thing - instead of wasting time having babies, they can go and work and keep house prices up. In any event, they'll need a lot more nurses to provide the free old age care for wealthy pensioners to enable their heirs to inherit their properties.

Plus, Britain is an overcrowded island, so fewer babies = lower population, and lower population = fewer houses being built to preserve The Hallowed Greenbelt, for future generations who obviously will never be born, because on Planet Home-Owner, nobody ever dies and nobody is ever born.

In the mythical past which according to Home-Owner-Ists has always persisted, young people just worked and saved to "get on the ladder" and there was no property taxation and no new houses were ever built, so what are today's priced-out generation whining about?

(I tell you, writing propaganda for the Home-Owners' Party is just as easy as writing for the Communist Party or the BNP, it just flows naturally).

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:03PM Report Comment

2. str 2007 said...But the minister for women, Harriet Harman, said that working "doesn't mean that you're not a real woman".

But IMO does mean you're not a real mother.

Can't believe so many go through the effort of having a child/ren and sling them in full time care at 6 months old.

A few are forced to for financial reasons, most that do choose to through IMO their own self greed. Most children under the age of 5 don't really mind what size house they live in or whether mum's got a 4 wheel drive, or whether or not they holiday abroad twice a year.

But I suspect most would prefer to have mum around.

And without mum who's there to get my supper on the table by 6.00pm.

Right, that's got that off my chest. No doubt I've upset everyone.

So while I'm at it - stop taking your kids out of school in term time to go on holiday. You might not care or think it makes any difference, but the rest of the class have to sit there while the teacher stops and goes over everything your kids missed last week which is relevant to what all the other children are trying to learn this week,.

Oh yes and while I'm at it. Please judge a roundabout as you drive upto it. The dashed lines on the entrance to a round about mean give way. Not stop, look and then realise there was nothing coming.

Rant over - thank you.

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:27PM Report Comment

3. str 2007 said...Sorry Sarah

I've strayed from houses again.

Didn't mention charts though - D'oh, there I go again.

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:30PM Report Comment

4. mark wadsworth said...I'm not sure whether STR was parodying H-O Propaganda or not, but that's another good one: "Seeing as today's mothers only sling their children into care at 6 months to rush back to work to keep up with the mortgage repayments, they might as well not have kids at all. Back in the mythical past, women stayed at home with their kids. Even though houses were just as expensive then."

Friday, October 9, 2009 03:36PM Report Comment

5. crunchy said...4. mark wadsworth

Have you ever wondered or thought about the funders and pushers of the Women's Lib Movement?

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:45PM Report Comment
 

19. crunchy said...

16. crunchy said...Love it. Top man 11. enuii

The hard numbers and dates are where I start. Enjoy! Goodnight

Sorry for the blip!

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:45PM Report Comment
 

20. paranoia blue said...

I just love ladies xxxx

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:48PM Report Comment
 

21. tenant super said...

@ Will, I quite agree. If Pankhurst had used her time profitably, baking scones for the church fete and polishing her husband's knobs, instead of setting fire to the orchid house at Kew Gardens (damn those orchids and their phallic stamens); I would now be resplendent in a five bedroom victorian villa in Stoke d'Abernon rather than spending my best years in a rather dreary flat in Camberwell.

Friday, October 9, 2009 04:52PM Report Comment
 

22. Cozza said...

Staying at home, cooking, wiping snotty noses, watching Jeremy Kyle?. Earning no ££ and being dependent on partner? Not on yer nelly. Women come to regret leading this sort of life in middle age. So do men.

Friday, October 9, 2009 05:57PM Report Comment
 

23. icarus said...

crunchy @7 said "we were all meant to be working a three-day week by now". Instead couples are holding down three jobs between them. GDP has risen steadily but real wages have stagnated. Henry George (LVT proponent) asked in the 19th century why there was so much poverty given the industrial revolution's productive power. We are still asking that question. Why is it that after 65 years of phenomenal technological progress since WWII we're not all living on easy street with both parents spending lots of time with their children? One study showed that housing accounted for just 15% of family budgets in New York City in 1900 but almost 40% in 2006. And why are the top 1% getting richer and richer? One word - we live in a rentier economy.

Friday, October 9, 2009 06:02PM Report Comment
 

24. mr g said...

MW@1 "they'll need a lot more nurses to provide the free old age care for wealthy pensioners to enable their heirs to inherit their properties"

I started work as a labourer on the shop floor before my 16th birthday and worked my boll*cks off for 45 years during which time I rose to the post of General Manager, and:

1. Raised a family, my wife gave up work for 14 years to bring up the kids during which time mine was the sole income in the house. We did without the foreign holidays, pi*sing it against the wall, meals out and camcorders etc in order to pay the mortgage and pay for the kid's education. The latter was not through snobbery but to give my children a chance in life due to the sh*te education system in this country over the last 40 years.

2. As a result, I now own my house outright.

3. Save, in order to provide a reasonable standard of retirement which I have achieved.

4. Paid my share of taxes and full NI contributions therefore I have no qualms about taking the state pension when I reach 65 or using the NHS to prolong my longevity.

Therefore, why the hell shouldn't I and thousands like me enable their heirs to inherit their properties?

No doubt when you reach retirement you'll view things in the same way but meanwhile it's OK to slag us off and try to score cheap points, or perhaps you believe in ethnic cleansing of everyone over 60?

In str 2007's words: rant over, thank you.

str 2007 said...@2 Excellent post, not a rant at all!

Friday, October 9, 2009 06:25PM Report Comment
 

25. paul said...

mr g, you've made a few points, but none of them are well supported your arguments because your arguments are predicated on the advantages you've had being available nowadays. They are not.

What? You don't think you had any advantages? Well let's see ...

1. Ability to pay a mortgage on a single income. As a first time buyer young couple, you have a clear choice now - buy a one bedroomed flat (no garden) and have a child, or have a two bedroomed flat and pay the mortgage.

2. Save. Yes, but after paying for horrendous debts racked up as part of getting an education (which is a requirement for young people to even be considered for a decent job nowadays) and after of course putting aside enough for your retirement, you'll be left with a erm, 'negative income stream'.

3. Yes, the state pension. Shame it won't be anywhere near as much by the time young people reitire - if they ever do! At the rate at which it's being adjusted upwards, some may never retire!

So you see, young people are going without affordable housing so that you can ride the system in the unsustainable way that you do.

Fair? Hell no!
Inevitable? Hell no!
Decided by young people? Hell no!
Decided by self-interested boomers? Hell yes!

Friday, October 9, 2009 07:27PM Report Comment
 

26. will said...

Well said Paul

Are you up for it at the next General Election? - Hell yes.

The Bommers will go into care in the next 10 years and will need to sell up. Who will buy off them then? Their assets will be worthless.

Friday, October 9, 2009 07:39PM Report Comment
 

27. Chilli said...

Ahh!! You guys have touched on a subject very near and dear to me.

In the middle ages 80% of us were engaged in the production of food. Today that number is 3%. Presumably the other 77% are all engaged in worthwhile activities; lawyers, advertisers, parking attendants, politicians, special interest charities. Its a modern world and someone has to sacrifice their lives so that we can have these luxuries.

Sarcasm aside; it strikes me that the modern world is very much engaged in what I like to refer to as 'arms races'. If company A hires more advertisers, then company B has to hire more in order to maintain market share. (We are past the point where we are simply informing the public as to their choices.) And the cost of it, ultimately maintaining the status quo, is passed onto the consumer at the end of the day. (Barriers of entry would prevent upcomers from out competing these corporate dinosaurs.)


Its the same with Law, and much of IT. (I'm trying to think of other examples.)

Its a fundamental flaw of the free market system; much like 'tragedy of the commons'.

And then there is the need to keep people in needless jobs so that they can forfill their duties as good little consumers in order to keep our economy ticking over. Little Johhny's happy child hood is being sacrificed as a result.

Also there is the built in obsolescence of cars, consumer devices etc.

I'm not arguing for communism. Our system is more correct than communism. But a blind man can see that the theory of the free market/capitalist model doesn't meet with the reality.

I personally think the government should offer salaries to all mothers. The decrease in supply of cheap labour as a result, would cause labour to be more dear, which means existing labour would be applied in more efficient capacities. Little Johnny would have a mother and would grow up a more balanced and smarter kid and the country would again become a paragon of the modern world. Also mum would have more time to spend money and as a result, would increase profits for companies, which would pay more in salaries in order to feed the machine. And daddy would feel more job satisfaction. (Read up on Keynes if you don't think this will work.) (The only problem now is to prevent mum from become a fat couch potato, who decides to have more kids and then neglects them.) (Possibly dad can run of with another women in that case.) I would like to mention the word 'France' at this junction as evidence that this is the way to go. They work 5 hours less a week than I do!

Friday, October 9, 2009 07:45PM Report Comment
 

28. tenant super said...

My generation (XY) enjoy things unimaginable to my parents: cheap flights, cheap electronic goods, heck, my parents couldn't even afford a car.

However, the one thing young adults really need; a home to live in is out of their reach. This isn't because they spend money on those aforementioned things; even if they live on spuds and never go out, they will never be able to buy even a modest family home. My dad was a junior manager for a London accountancy firm when I was born. He bought a 3 bedroom maisonette in West Byfleet (Surrey) for two and a half times his salary. A junior manager in a similar job would now earn about £40k. So the maisonette should be £100K. They in fact sell for £400K +

Mr. G, no-one is disputing that people like you worked hard to buy their houses thirty years ago. The point is, a hard working person who, like you, starts on the shop floor and works his way up, hasn't got a hope in hell of doing the same now. Part of the reason is a self-interest in asset inflation by the boomers. If prices depreciated, your heirs could buy their own houses and probably wouldn't be so interested in their inheritence anyway. I couldn't give a stuff that my parents own a home that at the peak of the boom could have sold for over half a million quid. By the time they die, my own life will be half over anyway. I'd rather to be able to buy that little maisonette I was born in and grew up in than wait for them to pop their clogs.


I don't think the boomers are more inherently selfish than any other generation

Friday, October 9, 2009 07:48PM Report Comment
 

29. enuii said...

Paul @22; It's a bit unfair to label baby boomers en-mass as self interested, they are receiving the benefits of historical government social policy. However as with any government policy, pledge or laws cast in stone, they can simply be overridden by a simple act of parliament to create a new law.

It remains to be seen irrespective of the disproportionate power of the grey vote (the sector of society with the highest voter percentage turnout) how they will fare in the future, especially those in supposedly bomb proof gold plated notional pension schemes.

As for the rest of us laden with the burdens of modern life in the long term debt ridden UK we will just have to soldier on and accept that life will not be as financially benign as it has been in the past thanks to the debt fuelled 'feel good' economy that over complacent politicians have nurtured over the last 20 years or so.

Blame the politicians not the Pensioners.

Friday, October 9, 2009 07:51PM Report Comment
 

30. tenant super said...

Absolutely; the boomers are more inherently selfish than any other generation they have taken advantage of their inheritence and situation. This country needs to relax planning laws and build quality homes (associated infrastructure) . Perhaps one day a party could use this as an election pledge and this could help them win. I cannot wait that long and am heading over the Irish sea (I have a lot of professional contacts over there and Mr TS is Irish so we have family there too) where there are 300,000 empty homes and a HPC that happily hurtles unabated.

But Ireland saw a baby boom in 2007 when it had the highest birth rate in Europe so the housing surplus won't last forever. Maybe in sixty years time I will be a self-interested nimby pricing out my kids' genenration and asking them to subsidise my double incontinence pads while they're at it!

Friday, October 9, 2009 08:17PM Report Comment
 

31. mr g said...

One thing I forgot to say @21 is that I couldn't give a tinker's f*rt about what my house is valued at. I don't view it as an indicator of my wealth, it's simply my home.

I genuinely feel sorry for people wishing to buy a house today with the obscene prices that still prevail and have some understanding of the bitterness exemplified by the posts @22 and 23.

However, whether you consider me a boomer or not, I'll be damned if I am going to let my house or other assets fall into the hands of some council as my parent's house did and be squandered on some politically correct nonsense, they can pay for my care instead of street football or flatulence fighting facilitators.

Friday, October 9, 2009 08:37PM Report Comment
 

32. icarus said...

paul @22 - add this too: mr g kept his job over all those years, unlike the guy on TV the other day who'd been at his company for 40 years before it went into administration, job obliterated along with his pension. He finds it difficult to get another job, too young (58) to draw a state pension.......

Friday, October 9, 2009 08:45PM Report Comment
 

33. mark wadsworth said...

@ Mr G, I'm grateful to you for reminding us of how deeply entrenched home-owner-ism is.

You say "I'll be damned if I am going to let my house or other assets fall into the hands of some council.."

That's exactly how young people feel about paying all that income tax and VAT and National Insurance, a lot of which goes to pay your old age pension, NHS care etc. There's no law says they have to - they could all go abroad, for example.

What goes around comes around.

Friday, October 9, 2009 09:13PM Report Comment
 

34. braindeed said...

Tenant super: I think until XY become the same bloc as the wrinklies, you’re forked - but who’s going to man the barricades when threre's a mortgage to pay, or if the rest are in denial and down the pub?

But you do have my sympathy, BTL and BoM&D – true pincer.

Friday, October 9, 2009 09:26PM Report Comment
 

35. rumble said...

Chilli, have just started the communist manifesto, has touched on over-production you're getting at. Good read so far.

Friday, October 9, 2009 09:52PM Report Comment
 

36. icarus said...

No point in blaming one generation or another. The basic problem goes way back. Two centuries ago Ricardo argued for grain imports to feed growing populations, arguing that the alternative was to become dependent on British landowners to grow the grain on less and less fertile soils, forcing up food prices, basic living wages and land prices. The higher wages (and rents) would make employers uncompetitive in world markets and dampen profits, investment and living standards, making society poorer but landowners richer. Bankers tended to support industry against protectionist landlords because they had always made their living financing international trade and investment - but they later shifted over to the side of landlords and monopolists, who, along with the bankers, extract the kind of unearned income from the economy that Ricardo's landlords sought to extract.

Friday, October 9, 2009 09:56PM Report Comment
 

37. paul said...

mr g has left the building ...

Saturday, October 10, 2009 11:28AM Report Comment
 

38. mr g said...

I went to the pub at 845 pm.

Saturday, October 10, 2009 02:03PM Report Comment
 

39. mr g said...

Mark Wadsworth @ 33 "I'm grateful to you for reminding us of how deeply entrenched home-owner-ism is."

My pleasure entirely Sir, I make no excuse for the "home-owner-ism" you seem to despise.

The point I'm making is that I'm an ordinary working class person who has simply done his best over the years to improve his lot without sh*tting on or taking advantage of other people, what's wrong with that? In the eyes of the liberal left, social mobility is to be applauded. I am as disgusted as you are by the obscene level of house prices that have priced people out of the market over recent years.

Icarus @32 "mr g kept his job over all those years, unlike the guy on TV the other day who'd been at his company for 40 years before it went into administration, job obliterated along with his pension. He finds it difficult to get another job, too young (58) to draw a state pension"

You're wrong there mate: When I was 55 my employer went t*ts up and I was out of work for 10 months but despite the ageism prevalent in recruitment I had sufficient skill and ambition to get another job. Just short of my 59th birthday I moved of my own accord to a better paid managerial job (we're talking the real world of manufacturing here by the way, not some cushy financial or service sector job) which I recently retired from.

To quote Mark Wadsworth: "What goes around comes around." If you learn through the "university of life" you will acquire more usable skills enabling you to better yourself, in other words the social mobility so beloved of people with a liberal / left outlook on life.

Saturday, October 10, 2009 02:48PM Report Comment
 

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Username  
Admin Password
Email Address
Comments

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies