House Prices vs Salaries

[Mancunian284]

11 minutes ago, longgone said:

Do these women do direct payments as I have yet to get the benefit of their efforts.

Were you replying to me?

Edited May 4, 2018 by Mancunian284

[steve99]

3 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

My friends only take a year max off per kid and given that they are higher rate tax payers then I think they are entitled to their £540 per month maternity pay, given how much they have paid in. They’ve spent the rest of their working lives subsidising the offspring of low skilled men.

I work in Marketing for a professional services firm. I earn twice the average salary so am clearly an outlier in terms of averages. I read somewhere that any single person (male or female) who earns less than 19k is being subsidised. I don’t know if this number is correct. My point is that there is a culture of popping out kids for benefits that has come from somewhere - I don’t think feminism is the problem though.

Oh dear! what a way to think. I can assure you that someone in marketing, male or female is being greatly subsidised by those earning much much less than yourself. Your company pays them less so that they can pay you more. The toilet cleaner at your workplace who is on a zero hour contract, min hourly wage is subisidising you purely on account that they are paid less than a living wage and you are getting double a real living wage.

Marketing like many modern high paid jobs in the UK (especially) is an almost useless occupation (regardless of all your so called education and experience leading up to your high paid job). I can add marketing to the long list of most of the UK's high paid jobs that are worthless and pointless in comparison to the jobs that would make the UK a much better place to live and also that which makes the UK a better contributer to the entire planets well being. eg bankers and their associated financial engineers, city lawyers, Anyone involved in most aspects of real estate, TV personalities, sporting hero's and so on. If you told me you were a doctor or a civil engineer, a farmer or numerous other real and necessary jobs that contribute to society then I would go along with what you say however a huge number of people who do real jobs have been shuffled down to the bottom of the pack since Maggie T and chums decided that 'the City' and whats on paper has more value than things we really really need in life. Even experienced teachers are on half of your pay. (mind you I would think that the core of the Tory party would do away with education for real people if it didnt lose too many votes, ie they see teachers as a nuisance)

As for tax, well we pay a huge VAT in the Uk and this was brought in and expanded so that those taking the most money could pay less tax. I can assure you that the majority of people on low wages are making someone else rich, not themselves.

Edited May 4, 2018 by steve99

[Mancunian284]

10 minutes ago, steve99 said:

Oh dear! what a way to think. I can assure you that someone in marketing, male or female is being greatly subsidised by those earning much much less than yourself. Your company pays them less so that they can pay you more. The toilet cleaner at your workplace who is on a zero hour contract, min hourly wage is subisidising you purely on account that they are paid less than a living wage and you are getting double a real living wage.

Marketing like many modern high paid jobs in the UK (especially) is an almost useless occupation (regardless of all your so called education and experience leading up to your high paid job). I can add marketing to the long list of most of the UK's high paid jobs that are worthless and pointless in comparison to the jobs that would make the UK a much better place to live and also that which makes the UK a better contributer to the entire planets well being. eg bankers and their associated financial engineers, city lawyers, Anyone involved in most aspects of real estate, TV personalities, sporting hero's and so on. If you told me you were a doctor or a civil engineer, a farmer or numerous other real and necessary jobs that contribute to society then I would go along with what you say however a huge number of people who do real jobs have been shuffled down to the bottom of the pack since Maggie T and chums decided that 'the City' and whats on paper has more value than things we really really need in life. Even as good teachers are on half of your pay.

As for tax, well we pay a huge VAT in the Uk and this was brought in and expanded so that those taking the most money could pay less tax. I can assure you that the majority of people on low wages are making someone else rich, not themselves.

My company obviously thinks I am worth more than the toilet cleaner otherwise they would pay the toilet cleaner 60k too, wouldn’t they.

”I can assure you (young lady)”, have you just arrived here from the 1920s? Women are allowed to vote and all sorts now, like it or not. It’s irrelevant what you and the rest of the Incel movement think as you are, thankfully, a minority.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Mancunian284

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

6 hours ago, MattW said:

Feminism has a lot to answer for.

It was not feminism, but Financial Services playing a blinder and getting the second salary on the pitch. I’m not remotely P.C.

[Mancunian284]

43 minutes ago, Freezer? Best place for it said:

It was not feminism, but Financial Services playing a blinder and getting the second salary on the pitch. I’m not remotely P.C.

I agree. Didn’t take long for Locke, Matt W, Dropbear, happyguy and steve99 to blame women instead though. Thankfully they are in a minority, most men are not misogynistic these days.

[Noallegiance]

Not gender specific:

Or, for those with an even less PC disposition:

[Arpeggio]

2 hours ago, steve99 said:

Marketing like many modern high paid jobs in the UK (especially) is an almost useless occupation (regardless of all your so called education and experience leading up to your high paid job).

Sorry I can't agree. I'm a one man band but the marketing aspect is as much as full time job. Larger businesses hire marketing firms for good reason. "Build and they will come" isn't true. Also this forum is currently subsidized by adverts we see around it right now.

[Mancunian284]

28 minutes ago, Noallegiance said:

Not gender specific:

Or, for those with an even less PC disposition:

Thank you. I know exactly what Marketing is, the good and the bad. I took offence at the comments above implying that feminism/women are the cause of house price inflation and that men heavily subsidise women.

[nome]

13 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

My friends only take a year max off per kid and given that they are higher rate tax payers then I think they are entitled to their £540 per month maternity pay, given how much they have paid in. They’ve spent the rest of their working lives subsidising the offspring of low skilled men.

I work in Marketing for a professional services firm. I earn twice the average salary so am clearly an outlier in terms of averages. I read somewhere that any single person (male or female) who earns less than 19k is being subsidised. I don’t know if this number is correct. My point is that there is a culture of popping out kids for benefits that has come from somewhere - I don’t think feminism is the problem though.

Surely that should read any single PARENT earning less than £19k a year is being subsidised?

As a single, childless person earning less than £19k a year I certainly don't feel like I'm being subsidised when looking at all the benefits that singles (and couples) with children get.

[Mancunian284]

1 hour ago, nome said:

Surely that should read any single PARENT earning less than £19k a year is being subsidised?

As a single, childless person earning less than £19k a year I certainly don't feel like I'm being subsidised when looking at all the benefits that singles (and couples) with children get.

I think that the figures are any single person under 19k is being subsidised. A single parent with 2 kids earning under about 35k is being subsidised. It was based on average use of the NHS of 2.5k per year, contributions to the state pension etc. I didn’t save the article so these figures may not be correct. Back to my point about people being encouraged to have kids as a career choice rather than work (or work 16 hours per week as a sale employed manicurist to really max out the benefits), the benefits that a low earner/non worker gets when they become a single parent are a lot, enough to be an incentive to choose that life.

[Dorkins]

I really don't think the insane house price inflation from 1997 onwards can be blamed on women entering the workplace. That social change happened in the 1970s-1980s and was essentially complete by about 1990. Plus there was no significant increase in the proportion of adults in work, it's just that the employment rate for men went down while that for women went up. The % employment rate for adults overall stayed about the same.

It is false to say that house prices have gone up because there are more wage-earners now. There has been no significant increase in wage-earners. Simple maths: in 1971, 92% men + 53% women averages to 72.5% employment rate. In 2011 76% men + 67% women averages to 71.5% employment rate. Where are all the extra salaries?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/womeninthelabourmarket/2013-09-25

Edited May 5, 2018 by Dorkins

[stop_the_craziness]

15 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

Also, up until the early 1980s, a single woman was not allowed a mortgage unless she had a responsible male to guarantee it for her. My mother worked for NatWest then and would not have been allowed a mortgage from her own employer. So not all single people could buy a house on a single wage in the past.

Excellent point well made. I am sadly in the position of being a single, working woman who is not earning enough to get a decent mortgage, but remembering that those who came before me simply couldn't get a mortgage because of their gender is a sobering thought.

[Arpeggio]

58 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

I really don't think the insane house price inflation from 1997 onwards can be blamed on women entering the workplace. That social change happened in the 1970s-1980s and was essentially complete by about 1990. Plus there was no significant increase in the proportion of adults in work, it's just that the employment rate for men went down while that for women went up. The % employment rate for adults overall stayed about the same. 

It is false to say that house prices have gone up because there are more wage-earners now. There has been no significant increase in wage-earners. Simple maths: in 1971, 92% men + 53% women averages to 72.5% employment rate. In 2011 76% men + 67% women averages to 71.5% employment rate. Where are all the extra salaries? 

I'd hope you are right but that doesn't account for mortgage lending based on joint income, even if it's the same amount of people at work no?

I think it would be interesting to look at if other things have gone up in price due to women in the workplace for comparison? if such things exist. Of course industries that are more unique to female consumers don't count. Most other things aren't a captive market in the same way as land / housing so it might be an entirely different thing.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Arpeggio

[Just_Do_It]

1 hour ago, Dorkins said:

I really don't think the insane house price inflation from 1997 onwards can be blamed on women entering the workplace. That social change happened in the 1970s-1980s and was essentially complete by about 1990. Plus there was no significant increase in the proportion of adults in work, it's just that the employment rate for men went down while that for women went up. The % employment rate for adults overall stayed about the same.

It is false to say that house prices have gone up because there are more wage-earners now. There has been no significant increase in wage-earners. Simple maths: in 1971, 92% men + 53% women averages to 72.5% employment rate. In 2011 76% men + 67% women averages to 71.5% employment rate. Where are all the extra salaries?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/womeninthelabourmarket/2013-09-25

If the percentage or people in employment between 1970 and today are similar, could the extra salaries be caused by population growth?

[Dorkins]

15 minutes ago, Just_Do_It said:

If the percentage or people in employment between 1970 and today are similar, could the extra salaries be caused by population growth?

No, because there are more properties per capita now than there were in 1970.

[Dorkins]

43 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

I'd hope you are right but that doesn't account for mortgage lending based on joint income, even if it's the same amount of people at work no?

Well, quite. Banks are now willing to lend each household a much bigger multiple of household income than they were in the past. And if the banks won't lend it the government will via Help to Buy.

The issue is not the increase in household income (has there really been one??) it's that lending has grown much faster than incomes.

[deadasadodo]

Analysing the impact of working women on house prices is a bit like analysing the impact of the Earth going round the sun. Aside from the Incels and their ilk (who seem to think women as shrew like creatures to be used for sex and child rearing) the vast majority of people would agree that denying women the rights to work and have an independent financial existance was a huge historic wrong. This isn't going to change.

What can change is how 2 salaries are judged in a mortgage application. But this involves banks making judgements. Should two mates or a homosexual couple buying together be given a mortgage based on both salaries but a young heterosexual couple only on the man's? What about if they say they don't want to have kids?

What would be interesting is an analysis of the impact of couples getting together later in life and keeping their old (mortgaged) flats as rentals. This would seem to have had a huge impact on the availability of smaller flats to buy - effectively people climbing up the ladder and kicking away the bottom rung for other people.

People arguing that women are being 'subsidised' by men in the workforce need to see the big picture. I'm sure I don't need to spell out where babies come from, but unless the father does a complete disappearing act his children will be financially reliant on him to a degree. If Mum has no money Dad will have to make up the difference. Maternity pay and employment rights protect both parent's finances. Younger men in the workforce can surely understand that the rights being afforded to their female parent colleagues will most likely one day be afforded to their own partner.

[longgone]

17 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

Were you replying to me?

all women

[A third of everything]

I see loads of foreigners at house viewings - both of the houses I viewed today had people of other ethnicities at them - I'm going to blame immigration rather than feminism - but wait, there were women in the couples too so should I be blaming feminism after all?

[Mancunian284]

18 minutes ago, A third of everything said:

I see loads of foreigners at house viewings - both of the houses I viewed today had people of other ethnicities at them - I'm going to blame immigration rather than feminism - but wait, there were women in the couples too so should I be blaming feminism after all?

Were any of them homosexual or disabled? You could blame them instead. Especially if they were foreign, female, disabled lesbians - that lot really have a lot to answer for. According to Locke anyway.

[CentrinoDuo]

1 hour ago, A third of everything said:

I see loads of foreigners at house viewings - both of the houses I viewed today had people of other ethnicities at them

Brown, yellow, red, black ... aren't always foreigners. White ... could well be foreigners

[CentrinoDuo]

On 04/05/2018 at 16:05, Locke said:

By the way, you are an extreme outlier. Most female workers are net contributors to the system (give more tax than they spend) for about 4 years in their 40's. The rest of the time, they consume more taxes than they contribute.

What is your job?

That is just a ridiculous statement. What all the time that women work before they have children? And even if women are taking a year off for maternity or stop working at all to look after children, the state is not subsidising the women, the state is subsidising the children!

Extreme outliers? Another ridiculous statement.

[A third of everything]

56 minutes ago, CentrinoDuo said:

Brown, yellow, red, black ... aren't always foreigners. White ... could well be foreigners

In this thread's spirit of broad brush tarring I suppose you're right, blame them all

[dropbear]

5 hours ago, A third of everything said:

I see loads of foreigners at house viewings - both of the houses I viewed today had people of other ethnicities at them - I'm going to blame immigration rather than feminism - but wait, there were women in the couples too so should I be blaming feminism after all?

We’ve had around 3.8 million new immigrants since 1997 - the last time house prices were at 4x single income. It definitely puts upward pressure on prices.

[anonlymouse]

On 04/05/2018 at 13:35, MattW said:

I could possibly qualify for a mortgage of £72k...A spacious 2 bedroomed flat in my city can be bought for around £130k maybe. House prices are certainly out of sync imo.

Feminism has a lot to answer for.

You're single, earn less than 3/5 of the median UK salary, and can't afford to buy somewhere which is bigger than what you need - but the problem is feminism? You've got a beam in your eye fella.