Keith Hudson,
I`am getting a bit bored by your economistic way of looking at workers life and 
work....you don`t seem to remember the stories of child labour, also mentioned in 
Marx`Capital. If you want to look at the real quality of life, you have to see the 
real difference in time invested in wage-labour and time free for playing...if you are 
a child.

John Graversgaard
labour inspector
Denmark


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:47 PM
Subject: Very gentle reminder to Ed (was Re: community and money


> 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 that were already 30 years out of date.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]
> _________________________________________________
> 

Reply via email to