to think that the norm of having a 2 working parent household, is fairly responisble for making housing cost so high

[carriedaxmaspud]

fair enough if both parent swant to work, its their choice, we are all differnt and want to do different things,
but seems to me that now the norm is for both parents to work, thats whats made house prices and rents go through the roof

i mean ther prices can only go up to what people can afford, so if buting a house was based on one persons wage not 2, the house prices would never have reached the outrageous prices they have.

Aleight, entirely agree with you on the pension tax credit impact, but I don't think that can be fully seperated from cost of credit. Concurrent with removal of credit was greater flexibility within the lettings market (ASTs, easier to get people out, near total removal of rent control) which opened up the possibility of buy to let mortgages. In addition to have people investing cash in property which they may have otherwise invested in the stock market, you also saw people buying additional properties with mortgages in place of setting up proper pension provision. My parents-in-law, aunt and uncle and previous landlord(multiple BTL properties, all at maximum possible LTV, when property "value" raises enough they withdraw surplus equity and use for an additional buy to let) as just some examples.

And another point (especially for whoever seemed to think I didn't know the real jobs women did) single income families was a relative new and now seemingly shortlived thing anyway. How many working class women have ever stayed at home to look after kids? Not many. Married women and mothers having jobs is nothing new, its the way it always was for vast sections of the population.

The difference now is we (almost, sort of) get paid a proper wage for working, and get our incomes recognised on things like mortgage applications.

ton where did i say it was singly handedly the cause.

i didn't.

you might have noticed other people are posting too OP.

Many apologies. I must have misinterpreted this:

"seems to me that now the norm is for both parents to work, thats whats made house prices and rents go through the roof"

Very good post by Tondelayo.

The only part I take issue with is "the growth of home ownership as something attainable / desired by income brackets that would previously rent" - the reason for that is the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies (1988) meant that suddenly people in rented accommodation could be moved on every 6 months rather than having a home for life.

Also if we starting with the thesis that the lack of affordability of housing today (renting or buying) is related to the price inflation caused by two-income households - does this hold up?

Is housing really less affordable today (relative to income) than it was 20 years ago / 50 years ago / 100 years ago?

My maternal grandparents (middle-class, own business (GP) and successful career (GM) with children who were privately educated) didn't own their own property until they were in their late forties. The family all lived with his mother in one house.

My paternal grandparents (poor, rural farm labourers) had 8 children in a 2 room cottage they inherited. Both worked. There was no disposable income - life was barely affordable even without rent.

Neither of my parents have never owned their own home and lived in social housing or rented through private landlords.

This is just my personal experience. I don't have any data but surely the basis of this argument is that housing is less affordable now than it was - is this really the case?

the two salary trap is a well documented economic phenomena.A second salary gave such families an advantage when buying property by allowing them to afford and subsequentl;y borrow more

Yes Bramshott - I agree with your emphasis.

Is housing really less affordable today (relative to income) than it was 20 years ago / 50 years ago / 100 years ago?

That's a slightly separate issue and depends where you are on the housing ladder.

The fact that interest rates have been low for so long (as in, sub 8%) means mortgage payments on very large sums remain affordable. Which is another driver of house price growth.

If you're trying to get on the ladder now, without the equity someone further up would have, you're still stuffed.

this book looks interesting, although a bit bleak

Its a well known theory noddyholder. It doesn't mean there is enough supporting evidence to suggest that is a primary cause.

Undoubtedly there is some truth in it. But the question remains, so what?

The reduction in deaths from smallpox has lead to an increase in population. And? It's just as pointless an argument.

"but seems to me that now the norm is for both parents to work, thats whats made house prices and rents go through the roof"

Er, no.

The majority of house buyers are not two-income couples with children.

In fact they are relatively small part of the whole picture, which also includes BTL landlords, single men and women, couples without children, retired people, second home owners etc etc.

What's caused house prices in this country to rise is a HUGE number of issues and I doubt if dual income parents have played much part at all. They are tiny part of a bigger picture which is influenced by everything from city bonuses to housing benefit payments.

In fact I would say that the cost of housing has probably contributed to both parents having to work, not the other way around.

It's not a separate issue Josie. It IS central to the OP's thesis: housing is now less affordable because dual-income families have driven up prices.

It may be one small piece of a very large, comlicated, intertwined puzzle.

BTW working class and unmarried middle class women always worked- it's not a new thing.

It does make a huge difference.If a couple with 3 kids are looking at the same house for eg 200k then those on a bigger salary ie 2 people working can always afford more and this in turn pushes prices up.

Huge city bonuses for many years.

Lots of second home ownership.

High divorce/separation rate.

Also childcare eats into dual incomes - not an issue for couples where one partner stays at home. And this is accounted for in mortgage applications

I think you are wrong, OP. that's the kind fo anti-woman propoganda the Government now wants to be put around.

If women (mothers) didn't work, we wouldn't be in this mess as there would be enough work for all the men [rolleyes]

Yabu. There are a lot of factors, and having two working parents is way down the list. As someone else said, if you are working parents, you have childcare costs anyway, which can offset the financial benefits of working for several years - when our children were pre school age, we were no better off after nursery costs than we would have been with one of us stuck at home!

Both parents tend to work nowadays because they don't want to be pigeonholed into provider or SAHP _they want to do both.

"Also childcare eats into dual incomes - not an issue for couples where one partner stays at home."

No, but there is still the issue of just one income as oppposed to two!

Tondy... is right. In 1901 my grandfather lived with 26 other young men in a 3 bed semi. Presumably they slept in shifts. That as the 1901 census. My grandmother worked. Her mother worked. If you didn't work you starved. There is no golden time when life was easy. In 1983we bought our first house. There was no maternity pay (I hadn't worked long enough to get it) so I took 2 weeks holiday and then went back full time when my first child was 2 weeks old. the cost of our childcare was more than one of our wages. Interest rates were 12%. The basic rate of tax was 33%.

We are in a recession now as we have had over the yars so times are hard for people but they were never much better in the past. My parents waited 13 years of marriage before having children so they could afford them. My grandfather married at well over 40 because he could not afford a family until then.

What we do need to guard against is sexism and threads about if only women were chained to sinks the world would be a better place is something that belongs in rural Sudan not the UK in 2010. If women can't afford morggages perhaps they shoudl have chosen better careers. No one forces you to choose to work in a call centre. Get an education. Qualify to be a leading surgeon. Think about these things as teenagers. Don't just go for the lowest paid job possible because you think that's a morally b etter position. Consider your ability to fund your family. Don't assum eyou will live off male earnings for life.

well someone has to work in the call centres not EVERYONE can be a ceo or top surgeon, the bins need collecting the shops need staffing the children need teachers and the hospitals need nurses etc.

we can't all be in top ceo type jobs surely you get that

I think it´s more that the rise in house prices means that 2 wages are needed for a mortgage tbh.