Feminism and house prices

well exactly SGM, working class women have always worked. We're not talking about labour here, we're talking about economic renumeration.
What happened was, workign class women started saying they would no longer put up with working for free, or for peanuts, and middle class women refused to be sent batty holed up in their homes and went into the professions.

Poor teh middle class menz could no longer afford a female slave at home. Working class men OTOH always have always to co-operate with women of their class, because they were economically productive.

Well that is a matter of opinion of course bugster.

Well, what I was trying to say is, I'm not sure it is a price worth paying, when you are a slave to your mortgage and no longer have a choice whether both parents work or one stays at home.

I'm sure the abolition of child labour in factories increased costs and had an effect on prices. Bad thing? Don't think so.

bugster - I wouldn't argue it was a factor. But even if it was my response would be 'so what?'. A price worth paying and one that had to be paid eventually.

Just to be a bit contraversial here: I've no doubt that there were many factors influencing rising house prices, but taking a woman's income into account in the 80s was I'msure one of them. I agree it seems today pretty shocking not to do so, but the explosion produced the situation you have now: in many parts of the country, in good areas, it is essential to have 2 incomes to buy and keep up payments on a house. It's rare formostfamilies to have the option of one stay at home parent. When both parents are forced to work just to keep the family home, is that really liberating?

disgusting

IIRC, an older friend of mine (in her 60s now) was asked what contraception she was using when she and her DH applied for a mortgage. Because clearly as soon as she had babies, she'd be out of the labour market.

lol

Not read thread but MIL blames women for that.

But then MIL is a bit of an arse too.

querty, sorry, you've missed my point [by quite a large margin]

I have already said that the dual income families probably was a contributing factor in rising house prices.

My point , however, is that there is some sort of underlying assumption that, well, women are to blame. If they'd have just stayed in the kitchen where they belonged, then the house prices would have remained constant, and everything would have been fine and dandy. THe ideology behind that line of thinking is that women have been "allowed" into the professions, by the good grace of men and this has upset the apple cart.

Whereas what actually happened was men/society had been free-wheeling on women's cheap factory work and unpaid domestic labour for far too long, and that when women wouldn'T stand for it any longer the gravy train came to an end. A single man could no longer afford to "keep" a female slave and own the property they both lived in.

Good.

Sorry Sakura, but that is utter twaddle. I know you love to see conspiracy and prejudice, but 'blame' is your word and your interpretation an invention. A greater number of dual-income families WAS a contributing factor to the increase in house values. It just was; sorry. To turn acknowledgement of this fact into an indication that society 'suggests women shouldn't buy houses' is risible. Find me a real person who thinks women shouldn't own property.

I've no doubt that women working in greated numbers affected the economy in a number of ways, but again, look at Handdivedscallops' point...

I agree with what HanddiveScallopsrGreat said. This:

"To suggest feminism is to blame is to suggest that women shouldn't really be able to buy houses. Which really shows where the people saying these things are coming from."

We have very restrictive planning policies. This is because no-body wants any new housing to be built near them. Even applications for a single dwelling create objections from neighbours.

Housing is in limited supply because we have planning laws. Longer lives combined with a growing population made up of smaller households, a desire for detached property, emplyment unequally spread throughout the country have all increased demand.

Limited supply and increased demand will always lead to an increase in prices. The alternative would have been higher demand for male workers leading to salary increases, increasing house prices via a different route.

Also politicians like house price rises as it allows greater spending through remortgages, perpetuating booms and their reelection.

Frankie we bought our house essentially one one income and will do so when we move. We don't do the whole maxing ourselves out in our mortgage thing as would rather not have sleepless nights if our circumstances change. It means we live in a much smaller house. But it can still be done now for sure. Probably depends where in the country you are. But i'm not in an area of particularly low prices and we're about average earners

I had a boyfriend who lived in one of these Council tower blocks. The flat was fab - 2 double bedrooms and a huge living/dining area. Not great if you had kids because there was no outdoor play space but ideal for childless people. The block has been demolished now and replaced with a housing estate.

Vesuvia, well indeed, but I thought we were looking at whether changes in women working could have contributed to house price rises in the actual system we have.

Or to put it another way whether the poor functioning of the housing market has led to so much of the economic gain made by women workers through feminism being captured by owners of housing stock.

Himalaya wrote - "If 2 earner familiess earn more, they are able to bid the price of houses up higher than 1 earner families."

That is of course the case in a profit-based capitalist system in which houses are usually sold to the highest bidder. In other economic systems the seller might sell the house to e.g. the first bidder or the bidder with the right connections etc.

When I got married in the 80's my dh and I were encouraged to buy a house only using his salary for the mortgage (ie 3.5 x his salary). We were told to do this by family and friends as it would mean that if I got pregnant and had to stop working for whatever reason we would be able to afford the mortgage. This was not a problem for us because even though dh had a very low salary at the time, we could still afford a two bed terrace house as house prices were so low compared to today. We saved all my salary and used the savings as a deposit towards our next house.

No one would dream of doing this today even if they could afford to! I think within one generation our whole mindset has changed.

I may be wrong but I don't think there are any economists saying "feminism is to blame for rising house prices" because 1) they can identify contributing factors, but that's not the same as blame - rising or falling prices are not in themselves good or bad things to economists and 2) because there are lots of contributing factors.

That said, I am sure that more mothers working in career jobs has contributed to a one-time price rise - particularly in easy commutable
houses. But so have lots of other things (and then speculation and buying as investment took off)

It doesn't need a memo to see how ia link could happen though Vesuvia.. If 2 earner familiess earn more, they are able to bid the price of houses up higher than 1 earner families.

As sports says it is just ridiculous. I think the Married Women's Property Act in the Victorian age allowed women to own property and before that those who were unmarried could anyway.

We had three years of inflation in the 1970s which I remember 18%,. 20% and 22% which was not fun for people at the itme with tax rates of 60% very common and someon 99%. They were hard times but certainly inflation took a hold. We have had period of high and low inflation in the UK which has an impact but my small study of the house we bought in 1983 for £40k which is now worth £250k(this was our first house not the current one) if you look at our wages in my profession and my children's father - a teacher head of department the ratios are the same. We earned about £15,000 jointly then and today a couple in those jobs are on £80k and the house is more not less affordable because in those days interest rates could be 8 - 12% and there were no interest only mortgages or they were very rare.

I must have missed the memo that dictated that just because feminism got some wind in its sails, house prices must increase to "compensate" for women having more income.

There may be a correlation between the fact that house prices have increased since second-wave feminism came along in the 1960s and 1970s. It wouldn't surprise me if there was also some absurd correlation between e.g. the introduction of certain breakfast cereals onto the market and an increase in house prices. However, correlation is not necessarily causation.

The rise in house prices was influenced by banks, building societies and estate agents using dual income of mortgage borrowers as a way to increase their profits.