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?

FridaKahlo - probably one for a new thread, but I don't think subsidied workplace childcare is the answer. It's not clear why it should be the employers job to stump up for childcare. But also it would only help people working for big companies in 9-5 jobs, and it only helps people with under 5s.
Also may not help women's careers - its harder to change jobs if it also means losing your childcare place.

SGM - but why? what is the benefit of making childcare be tied to the workplace site - at the end of a potentially long commute and with only one parent able to do the pick-ups and drop-offs, rather than something that parents can choose to access closer to home and to schools- and pick the right childcare for their children (of all ages..) rather than the nursery that is provided by their workplace? It can be subsidised, but i don't see the benefits of on-site as being the best way.

Employees being less likely to quit may be better for P&G etc... but that doesn't necessarily mean it is better for the employee (sometimes its good for your career to quit and go somewhere else - but that is hard if your child is settled into childcare that goes with the job).

On-site childcare also doesn't help anyone with over 5s, or anyone who doesn't work for a big company.

I also think it makes it definitely one parent's job to worry about and be responsible for childcare (...you know, the one who thought that onsite childcare was an attractive employee benefit when he she made early career choices...)

I guess if P&G provides onsite childcare that improves the productivity of the mum who works there (at a cost which makes her more expensive to employ), but also improves the productivity of the dad who works for some other corporation (who don't pick up any part of the bill)...it just all seems to enforce the view that childcare should be the responsiblity of one parent. And we know which one that will be.

I thought we were talking house prices? On-site childcare may be good for those working in specialised industries or on shifts. How scary that your children could be brought up by your workplace. Not just an ordinary child, this is an M&S child...

Sakura - I didn't miss the point at all; to suggest that I have is a lazy and ineffectual rebuff. You have simple taken a fact (which you acknowledge, at least) and then applied your own interpretation - which I disagreed with. There isn't a point to miss.

And arrogant. Did I mention arrogant?

DH reckons there's a funny British resistance to living in flats or any kind of dense housing

An English middle-class resistance maybe, not so on Scotland where extremely densely built tenements are the norm. It is not unusual to spend your entire life living in flats or raise a family in one if you live in a Scottish city.

Of course the poor in England were shoveled into tower blocks whether they liked it or not.

But the purpose built tenements of Glasgow & Edinburgh with their high ceilings large windows and special washing lines are a far cry from a 'two' bedroom flat carved out of one floor of an overpriced 3 bedroom house, meant for one family.

But I still think salaries have stayed low in comparison to house price because women are working and with two incomes they can afford more - if that's still the subject.