Feminism and house prices

[Anniegetyourgun]

An issue I've seen before was raised again in this thread and I thought I'd talk it out here rather than derailing the thread or showing my ignorance .

Issue is that feminism is blamed for the rise in house prices during the 70s/80s. The argument would appear to be that because women were able to (a) work and (b) earn a fair wage for doing so, the laws of supply and demand meant that prices and loans were geared towards double-income households, thus pretty much forcing everyone to go out to work whether it suited them or not, and making it very difficult for single earners to afford to buy a house at all. The net result is to reduce options for women rather than increase them.

There's definitely something that does not stack up here, but I am not an economist (tried doing an economics course at the OU a few years ago, couldn't get my head round it). I mean, there's the obvious point that if the price of housing depends on half the population being either chained to the kitchen sink or paid a lot less for doing the same job, this is unfair - like a society based on slavery, but you see we just can't afford to pay them, it's better for the slaves too etc. Also there are far too many assumptions that all women can get married if they want to (let's not even start on the theory that they should want to!), that working age equates to child-bearing age, that all women can as well as want to give birth, oh, and that all men are able to earn enough money to keep a family. These are all fair points IMO. What I'm looking for, though, is hard economic arguments as to why feminism taking the blame for house price rises is horseshit, because I'm fairly sure it is, but I couldn't tell you why.

Could someone with brains that work and/or who has read Useful Texts on the subject help me out, please?

I live in Brussels and it is very common to live in apartments - even when you have a family. But like Holey said - they are much better designed. The new builds they do here generally have 2 bathrooms, or at least a separate loo, utility room, storage etc. They landscape the area outside too. Our last apartment had a lovely view over a small park with playground and allotments that was all planned as part of the development. It also common to have offstreet/underground parking and a "cave" a lockable storage space in the basement where you can keep your bikes, xmas decs etc.

Also - concierges! Someone is employed to keep the communal areas clean, check everything is in working order, put bins out etc.

I always find this argument a bit gobsmacking. How anyone can defend the right of half the population to be economically active is beyond me.

It is about as logical as saying it's all the faulf of the NHS for making people live longer

I can never get the argument that women working has caused house prices to rise. Firstly, before the 1960s (I think ) home ownership was much less common - I imagine the desire to own your own home was probably a middle-class aspirational thing. Secondly, owning your own home is a peculiarly British thing. Thirdly, surely a greater demand for homes to buy would have driven prices up. Fourthly, it has become much easier generally to get a mortgage than it was 50 years ago with people being lent much more. Fifthly, houses are often seen as an investment rather than a place to live. People are always on about "putting value on your house" and making money from it. If none of that makes sense, I just wrote them in the order they came into my head.

People love to blame women for all sorts of problems. It helps with the argument that women shouldn't be doing things. I once knew someone who insisted that Britain's relative economic decline and decline as a world power had been caused by women being given the vote in 1918.

Were mortgage lenders allowed to take second incomes into account in the 60s & 70s? I may be wrong but I suspect that was one of the things that was liberalised in the mortgage reforms of the early 80s.

This article isn't really about this but it touches on it:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/06/deborah-orr-welfare-winners-losers

It is ridiculous, isn't it, that it can be remotely defensible to say, effectively: "it would have been much easier for me to buy a house when only half of adults were allowed to, and the other half had to rely on being in favour with those who were allowed material and financial agency, and I was in the lucky half, so it was better. For me, and people like me." Of course tragically many of the people coming out with this drivel aren't even in the lucky half.

Just to add in the mix, due to the focus on the private sector here to build houses we're relying on the very people who make money out of a housing shortage to alleviate a housing shortage. House builders want to sell at the highest price. High demand through lack of supply raises prices. So house builders can limit supply, by building less, and boost their profits.

Were mortgage lenders allowed to take second incomes into account in the 60s & 70s? I may be wrong but I suspect that was one of the things that was liberalised in the mortgage reforms of the early 80s.

The answer is yes. DH and I bought our first house in 1967 and the mortgage was based on both our salaries.

This feminism is responsible bollocks is just that - bollocks. Just another thing to try and make women feel guilty.

Must depend cos I know my parents couldn't and that was late 60s

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

Not read thread but MIL blames women for that.

But then MIL is a bit of an arse too.