Hi Ed, At 12:06 27/12/01 -0500, you wrote: (KH) >> In much the same way as joining friendly societies, 95% of the workers of >> those times also sent their children to fee-paying schools, and paid fees >> to their local doctors' and hospitals' panels. >> >> The fees were moderate, and the workers could afford them because, during >> the course of the Industrial Revolution -- never mind the highly selective >> views of Dickens, Engels or Marx at that time -- their standard of living >> was rising four or five-fold. (EW) >Just a very gentle reminder, Keith. Dickens, Engels and Marx were living in >those times, you were not.
Now matter how gentle your reminder, I must reply with facts. The following figures would be agreed by all economic historians (even if Dickens, Engels and Marx were not aware of them): Average GDP in UK rose from less than �1,000 per head in 1800 to �4,500 per head in 1900. In 1800 the poorest 20% of the UK population were earning about �300 per head -- one fifth of the earnings of the richest 20% at �1650 per head The ratio was about the same in 1900. No increase in inequality. A gain by all. Relatively, because from a much lower base, the poorest gained much more substantially. A gentle reminder, Ed, that Dickens, Engels and Marx were individuals with individual experiences in life and with individual motivations as to what, and how, they wrote. Engels and Marx had axes to grind to make facts fit the theory. Engels fed Marx with limited (northern England) statistics of poverty and mortality that were already 30 years out of date. If he had used up-to-date figures (and from London as well as the poorest parts of England), Marx could never have "proved" the increasing pauperisation of the working class. 'Cos it wasn't so! It wasn't so! There never has been such a growth of prosperity by ordinary working people! There were great problems from time to time -- strikes and lock-outs and all that -- and conditions were often grim. That was why the working man girded himself with "middle-class" institutions such as Friendly Societies and so on. But, generally, this was Eldorado compared with the countryside work of the 18th century. Dickens had had a traumatic childhood. His father, John Dickens, was arrested for debt. Charles was a boy then but even he had to appear before the Official Appraiser to see whether he had excess clothing that could be sold. He arrived in his only clothes, a white hat, small jacket and corduroy trousers. John Dickens spent 14 weeks in Marshalsea (the debtors' prison in London) before he was able to show that his debts were unintentional. (I won't take up more space to describe this rat-ridden place). Charles survived by hiding, and then pawning, his father's small library of books. When this money ran out he then had a job pasting labels in a blacking factory. Just about the dirtiest, least-paid job that could be imagined. Can you wonder that Charles Dickens had such a jaundiced view of Victorian England? Keith > >> >> But, since the State takeover of charity, the 5% "unworthy" element (my >> inference) of the population has now grown to something like 25% (my >> present-day estimate) making unjustified claims in one way or another. > >I wonder how judgemental we should be here? I'm old enough to remember the >Great Depression, and the enormous day by day struggle of the "unworthies" >of those days, my father among them, to keep their families badly housed and >barely fed. "Relief" was a last resort, but ever so many people had to use >it, even though they hated to do so. > >I've done some work at a local food bank and encountered some of the >"unworthies" of the present. Some are young immigrant mothers, perhaps the >wives of guys like the Slovak immigrant who gets up at four in the morning >to make sure I have my newspaper by five thirty. Some are middle-aged men >from the Ottawa Valley whose local economy had changed radically, giving >them, with their limited skills, no place to fit in. They had come to the >city to look for work, but there was nothing here for them either. A few >were students, trying to improve themselves, and looking for something to >supplement their usual diet of Kraft Dinner. There were a few Native >Indians trying to make sense of a world whose culture was alien to them. >There may have been some people in that crowd that were in some sense >"unworthy", but I would hesitate to try to identify them. > >> Fact: there is no longer enough money to pay for the continuation of the >> Welfare State. Claims will always rise above tax income. > >I have no problem with the state being in the welfare business, the >education business, the health business, etc., etc. In fact, I believe >these things are its business, and should be paid for by a fair, progressive >tax system. I personally deplore the current ideologically based campaign >to weaken, erode and destroy many of the good services that the modern state >has come to operate over the past two centuries. It's almost as though >educating children has been placed in the same category as selling junk at >Walmart. > >Ed Weick > > > > > __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
