Ed, I like your conversations with Keith. May they continue.
At the end of the 15th century, the labor pool still affected by the depredations of the Black Death. Then came a series of great harvests that had to be brought in. Although the Statute of Labourers was supposed to place a lid on wages, to get their fields harvested farmers paid higher and higher - even altering their books in case the Sheriff passed by. The laborer could earn a year's food for himself and his family with just 15 weeks work a year. An artisan - a blacksmith or wheelwright - could do the same with 10 weeks work. Their workweek was 8 hours a day for 6 days, maybe less than now considering the overtime so many people are doing. We won't consider the hours of commuting that are the lot of the modern worker. All this from Thorold Rogers' "Six Centuries of Work and Wages" Rogers went back to the original books of the farmers of the time. The point is that a half millennium ago, it was possible to have a pretty good working life with high wages, so why isn't it possible now? So, there's my question for today. Harry ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Weick wrote: >Keith Hudson: > > > 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. > >I have no doubt that average income increased over the course of the 19th >Century and that people were, in general, better off in 1900 than they had >been in 1800. I would, however, be interested in the source of your numbers >and whether they represent real or inflated values. The only helpful thing >I have on my shelves is Simon Kuznets' "Modern Economic Growth", and data >which he has managed to put together on long-term changes in income shares >only go back to 1860. > >As you know, the whole of the 19th Century was a period of tremendous >economic and social change. In such periods, "per head" averages tend to >obscure rather than reveal what is really going on. My own exploration of >that period and others (http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/coping.htm) have >led me to believe that the kind of social dislocation and misery observed by >writers like Dickens and social thinkers like Marx, Engels and others was >real. Many gained from industrialization, but others lost enormously. By >the end of the 19th Century, things had generally improved. IMHO, this was >because the labour movement had developed as a real social force, the most >advanced western nations had gotten into the business of educating and >looking after their citizens as though they mattered, and education and >skill levels had risen, making workers not only more productive but better >able to undertake new challenges. > > > 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. > >I'm not sure of how to respond to this. I would agree that Engels may at >times have exadgerated to make his point and that Marx needed grist for his >theoretical musings. But to deny that the grist existed is to deny history. >It is also a denial of all of the people - politicians, ideologues, social >activists, writers, artists and even industrialists like Robert Owen - who >devoted much their lives to the creation of a better world for ordinary >people. If, as you seem to argue, things were improving by leaps and >bounds, these people were not needed at all. They were wasting their time >and everybody else's. > > > 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? > >He also had a very large readership which shared his view of Victorian >England. He still has. > >Ed Weick ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
