To wonder where the money is coming from to buy houses?

[00100001]

So, if houses used to be (say) 4-5x average annual salary back in the olden days of the boomers.

And now house prices are 10 X average salary... Bit they're still being bought, and people want to buy...

Where is this money coming from?

Are boomer parents artificially inflating house prices by giving huge sums of money by releasing equity etc?

Who is buying the expensive houses??

Great. Let’s have a link to “all women born between 1945 and 1965 were paid less than men doing exactly the same job, after 1970. Every single one of them”.

Lots of factors - UK housing stock consists approximately 1/3 owned occupied with a mortgage, 1/3 owned occupied no mortgage and 1/3 rental (many of which are also mortgage free).

• wealthy overseas buyers have pushed house prices up by estimated 20% over last 20 years - people think its just London but it isn't - many large new build schemes in Northern Cities are promoted off plan and sold to Chinese -
• inheritances / gifts from parents / grandparents
• The rise of the B2L landlord over past 20 years - able to leverage their portfolio

what @Iamthewombat said. I can't think exactly the points with regards to other threads but you spot posters who behave in certain ways. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@DrSbaitso i work in accountancy. I’m actually only early 30s but we have a lot of people in their 20s who are earning good money. All of the girls have multiple désigner handbags, go out most weekends, go for bottomless brunch, multiple holidays. I don’t have and issue with any of this but then in the same breath say they can’t get a deposit together. And are constantly asking when payday is because they are skint!

@pateu

what *@Iamthewombat* said. I can't think exactly the points with regards to other threads but you spot posters who behave in certain ways. 🤷🏻‍♀️

So basically you’ve just done what you accused me of doing? Find the posts or pipe down.

See that's what I'm talking about 😆.

You should take some of your own advice...

As we are on this thread @Blossomtoes why don't you post evidence for the below

"Great. Let’s have a link to “all women born between 1945 and 1965 were paid less than men doing exactly the same job, after 1970. Every single one of them”."

You won't post any evidence & you will just ignore that point. As a said it's a pattern.

@pateu

As we are on this thread *@Blossomtoes* why don't you post evidence for the below

"Great. Let’s have a link to “all women born between 1945 and 1965 were paid less than men doing exactly the same job, after 1970. Every single one of them”."

Interesting discussion. This does not sound right though.

It isn’t right. The thing is that the only person who’s said it is the person demanding proof of it.

What was actually said by a pp was that women’s wages were generally lower than men’s in the 1970s/80s. Which they were.

ifs.org.uk/fs/articles/fsharkness.pdf

To take one profession, male and female teachers' achieved equal pay status in 1961, but there was an instance of a £7k differential between otherwise "equal" primary teachers as recently as 2018, according to a Guardian article I have just lost.

Now the ad hominem arguments. A sure sign that the person using them is on the ropes. I’m not dredging up your posts but here’s how it went:

• PP, in a ‘baby boomers had it so hard’ post, tells us that it was impossible to find out about mortgages in the 70s and 80s ( not true), that lots of people didn’t study A levels because they ‘couldn’t afford the living costs’ (not true) and that women were paid less than men for doing the same job. She didn’t use the word ‘generally’ to qualify that statement. Don’t pretend that she did.

• I respond to the latter statement by saying that it was clearly not true for all women entering the workforce in the 70s and 80s and that the PP talked as if she’d started work in the 1930s.

• you leap in claiming that I am wrong and there is a gender pay gap now and why can’t I see it, etc etc.

• I respond that the existence of a pay gap in 2022, which I did not dispute, has nothing to do with the PP’s statement that ALL women born between 1945 and 1965 were routinely paid less than men for the same job after 1970, and that the latter statement was nonsense.

• you dispute that energetically. No, the PP’s statement was not nonsense, you said. I couldn’t possibly know, you said, because I am too young (I am 50).

• I ask for evidence and you refuse to provide it. In fact, you go off in a sulk.

@XingMing

To take one profession, male and female teachers' achieved equal pay status in 1961, but there was an instance of a £7k differential between otherwise "equal" primary teachers as recently as 2018, according to a Guardian article I have just lost.

Hopefully you’ll find it again @XingMing.

I agree that more social housing is needed. Build small units for young singles and couples who are self supporting, but not on big incomes. No Right to Buy, but affordable rents to enable them to save a deposit. No automatic right to a bigger home if they decide to have children.

More affordable rented housing is needed for older people on below average incomes who want to downsize, but own homes that wouldn’t raise enough capital to buy a retirement property. That in turn would free up family sized homes.

As an early baby boomer, late 40s born, I remember a couple of women colleagues having to leave their council office jobs in the 1960s because they were getting married. All my managers in my early days of working in the public sector were men. By the 70s, things were changing, but married women were still often thought to be working for pin money, rather than to support their families like men did.

The UK's equal pay act passed because we were going to join the EU was 1970. However it took quite a few years for it to bite and I was very very very rare indeed as a female trainee solicitor in 1984 with a small baby.There then followed almost 2 decades of more complex litigation - equal pay for work of equal value eg council cleaners (paid little) v. dustbin men (paid a lot more) before we moved to more equality.

The bigger difference is not that. It is that in my day 15% of people got to go to university (ie very few) and today 50% do. So much better today than then.

We have 18m more people in the UK than when I was born (far far too many) and not the housing for them all. Couple that with more people living alone after divorce (divorce was very very rare in the 60s and even 70s was not that common) and more people living with their family rather than also with family the you need many more houses than we have. Occupancy rules have changed too so you are not allowed to cram people in in the way we used to do. At school one of my friends not only had to live with her granny but her granny shared a bed with her (not something most teenage girls liked then or now)

We have 18m more people in the UK than when I was born (far far too many) and not the housing for them all

What obviously didn't help was continuing Right to Buy (still not banned in England) and pushing Buy to Let (which inflated the bubble, priced out FTB - who in turn priced out lower income families and individuals from private rentals).

I get that we can't concrete over the whole of the countryside, and do need some limits. But round my way (and all over the UK) there are loads of new build developments.

The main issue is that they're mostly not affordable. We don't need more luxury apartments (I regularly walk past the billboard for one such development - in an area with decade long social housing waits).

Anyone who wishes to buy a more expensive home already has plenty to choose from.

Housing is being built. It's just the wrong price.