would anyone like to discuss the meaning of the following statement?

N1AK

TruckerT wrote: »

"The poorest 10% in the UK today are richer than all but the richest 1% in England 300 years ago"

TruckerT

I would argue that 'richer' isn't a subjective term. 'Rich' may well be. Given that everyone in the UK now has healthcare, schooling and access to pensions I think it is almost certainly true; that said, I don't really see what it 'shows' unless we are suggesting the lives of people 300 years ago should be a goalpost we aim for (imo a very silly idea).

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

By todays standards even being mega rich in the 1700s would have been a pretty miserable and brutal existence.

I don't agree. The landed gentry in the 1700s didn't have a particularly hard time of it. !!!!ing about hunting and drinking and gambling without ever having to even consider working...sounds pretty fun. Being Flashman would have been better though.

System

TruckerT wrote: »

Why would I look through the eyes of someone from 1713? Why not 1213? Or 13BC?

Because you started a thread inviting us to compare 1713 with 2013?

Part of the exercise necessary to compare living standards at two dates is to consider the respective perceptions of people living at those times.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I don't agree. The landed gentry in the 1700s didn't have a particularly hard time of it. !!!!ing about hunting and drinking and gambling without ever having to even consider working...sounds pretty fun. Being Flashman would have been better though.

There was no medicine, no running hot water, no toilets as such. Most places were constantly cold in winter. Most people (especially the rich) suffered constant tooth ache. Most were lucky to survive into their 50s.

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

There was no medicine, no running hot water, no toilets as such. Most places were constantly cold in winter. Most people (especially the rich) suffered constant tooth ache. Most were lucky to survive into their 50s.

Even the Romans had running water and doctors. And more port is an excellent cure for toothache. Gout might have been a bit of a problem though. It would be just like the lifestyle that rich kids with trust funds have today except there would be more port and fewer smartphones.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Even the Romans had running water and doctors. And more port is an excellent cure for toothache. Gout might have been a bit of a problem though. It would be just like the lifestyle that rich kids with trust funds have today except there would be more port and fewer smartphones.

The pox can be pretty uncomfortable as well. (I have been told).

grizzly1911

ILW wrote: »

There was no medicine, no running hot water, no toilets as such. Most places were constantly cold in winter. Most people (especially the rich) suffered constant tooth ache. Most were lucky to survive into their 50s.

Less bills and taxes to pay for said services.

stinktankcynic

People worked hard years ago to live a worse life than scroungers do these days?
I'm convinced modern people have a better standard of life than royalty years ago.
The Romans were really civilised. A good life in Rome may have been quite nice if you were in good health. People adapt. Six months in the early to mid 1900's and I doubt you would want to come back to modern times, excluding wars.

TruckerT

stinktankcynic wrote: »

Six months in the early to mid 1900's and I doubt you would want to come back to modern times, excluding wars.

That's an extremely interesting idea! The first half of the 20th century was when the labour movement took shape, and communism took hold. It was the time of the 'fightback' against capitalism by the exploited workforce. It was probably the cause of many of the things which are now said to be the universal benefits of capitalism (greater wealth for all, welfare benefits, health care etc etc).

Those benefits were not willingly provided by capitalists - they were fought for by the workers.

They are rapidly being diluted.

TruckerT

CLAPTON

TruckerT wrote: »

That's an extremely interesting idea! The first half of the 20th century was when the labour movement took shape, and communism took hold. It was the time of the 'fightback' against capitalism by the exploited workforce. It was probably the cause of many of the things which are now said to be the universal benefits of capitalism (greater wealth for all, welfare benefits, health care etc etc).

Those benefits were not willingly provided by capitalists - they were fought for by the workers.

They are rapidly being diluted.

TruckerT

Indeed so and it illustrates the superiority of the (semi) capitalistic model compared to the communistic model.

Under the (semi) capitalistic system workers became much better off; under the socialistic system they went to the gulags and starvation.