Female participation rates in the UK workforce have increased over time. In 1971 the UK figure was 52.7% [male 91.7%], by 2023 the figures were 72.3% and 79.5% respectively.
This can be seen as an important improvement in the status and position of women, though issues such as the gender pay gap indicate scope for enhancement.
The conventional view is that for couples the additional income derived from having two rather than one earner in a household has allowed households to afford higher house prices, implying that without the extra income affordability would be more of a problem.
However, the blog referred to below puts forward an alternative – that increased female participation and the consequent additional income, has had the effect of raising the amount of funds available to households thereby helping to push up house prices.
Its an intriguing view, and as the writer states, not supported or refuted in any research.
Thoughts welcome!
Scott Phillips, How on earth do you justify Australian house prices?
I think the point is not the number of women in the workforce, but the extent to which "partners'" incomes are taken into account for amount that can be borrowed (which gives how much can be spent on a house, hence house price). If you move from a situation where how much you can borrow is based on one income, to one based on two, then (other things being equal) you can borrow twice as much and afford to pay twice as much. As can everyone else, so house prices will double (approximately)