 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Comparative historical values
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Aug 14 - 08:08 AM Comparative historical values: In yesterday's The Times, a book review mentioning Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784, says that he rented a house near Fleet Street "for £30 a year -- £4,000 in today's money". I am sure there are all sorts of reliable calculations, of inflation &c, to arrive at this then·&·now value comparison. But it doesn't seem to work in all circumstances. For example, in Mansfield Park, by Jane Austen whose life overlapped with Johnson's, Lady Bertram, talking of the tip she had given on his departure to a visiting nephew, says "I gave him only £10. Sir Thomas said it would be enough." But we surely can't imagine her contemporary equivalent saying "I only gave him £1,300". So is there a formula which would cover both these comparisons? -- the actual inflationary and the social-expectational, as one might put it. ≈≈Michael≈≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 03 Aug 14 - 09:48 AM Three wild variables are mentioned or ignored above: 1. Where. Real estate values in particular spots in London and where in England? 2. When. Jane Austen's LIFE overlapping with Johnson's doesn't tell us anything. How much overlap? And in just what year during that overlap? And when she wrote that and when was the fictional time referred to? 3. Who--from whom and to whom? The habitual level of income and expenditure of Lord and Lady Bertram, as well as of the nephew, would put a ten pound tip in different arenas. And the personal relations between Lord and Lady Bertram might call forth greater or lesser munificence. And the income of Johnson at the time of the real estate transaction, as well as the importance to him of a certain kind of residence address. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Aug 14 - 10:15 AM Re Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram -- Mansfield Park published 1814. Dr Johnson died 30 years earlier, so overlap of the two lives about 9 years. But can't see that sort of minimal time lapse going to make a significant difference to my point. Nor SFAIC is the change in land values over 240 or so years. Not quite sure of significance of your queries, in re my puzzlement as to anomaly between difference in overall notional financial value, and the sort of amounts people would disburse in fairly small everyday transactions. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Aug 14 - 10:22 AM Or, to put it on other terms: if £30 then = £4,000 now, then £10 then = about £1,300 now. It seems that £10 was a perfectly reasonable tip for a departing nephew to expect from an aunt then. But no such would expect £1,300 now. So -- is there a different sort of measure that will have to be applied to smallish amounts? If so, what?, and how is it to be calculated? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: GUEST,# Date: 03 Aug 14 - 10:44 AM I suppose it might depend on what one spent the money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Bill D Date: 03 Aug 14 - 01:31 PM Obviously, different goods & services had different values depending on the era. A servant could live on less when certain basic goods were quite cheap. Example from my own life. When I was 8 in 1947, we had a cat. We often bought hamburger to feed it, as this was cheaper than commercial cat food. In 1966, I bought a 2 story house 4 blocks from my university in Wichita, Kansas.. the price was $8500. The relation to the cost of the house & my hourly wage was very different than it is today. It was possible to live relatively comfortably at a wage scale near the lower end....much harder today as food & housing are harder to acquire... production values and living space vary. "is there a different sort of measure that will have to be applied to smallish amounts? " More like smallish amounts of certain items.... which were in different supply back then. There are, as you note, formulas, but only in general. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Aug 14 - 01:47 PM Good points, Bill. But by "smallish amounts" as you copy/paste above, I meant of the actual money, rather than of the goods it could purchase. It seems that £10 was regarded as a reasonable tip (ie a 'smallish amount') for a young man to receive at the end of a visit to older relatives [for those who haven't read the book, he is a midshipman on leave who has been visiting the wealthy relations who have adopted his sister, and is returning to his ship]. But by the analogy of the change in land values cited in The Times which I quoted, that is equal theoretically to £1,300 in today's money; which nobody would regard as a 'smallish amount' of the sort which could be casually handed to a young visitor on his departure. I take it there should be some assessable economic/historical explanation for this anomaly; but blowed if I can see quite what it might be. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: GUEST Date: 03 Aug 14 - 04:45 PM Money is highly non- linear. The real value of money is how much of another person it can buy. That again depends on how much time they have to dedicate to staying alive. So before 1946 (in Britain), when there was very little social security, you could buy somebody's time very cheaply- he or she had to do something, anything- or starve. After that, up to the 1980's, you had to negotiate with their representatives to set a price, and people got very happy. Since then, Unions got threpped out, and even the people who would benefit from membership most are scared of joining them. That's why there's a slightly hopeless campaign for a "living wage" a little bit above starvation now. In the 18th century, £30 would represent about 3 times the income of an ordinary reasonably comfortable labourer. So, if an unskilled labourer now would earn £15000 a year, (that's about 40 hours a week at the minimum wage), three times that would be about £45000 a year. You can calculate it in many other ways too - take the beer standard- a quart for a penny. In my local pub, that's £6.20 now. 1488 times then, so the £30 rent becomes £44640 or £45000 to a nearest approximation- hey how about that for a coincidence. But notice that sleight of hand above-mI comapred comfortable labourers (then) with minimum wage (now). And that's what has happened to ordinary decent people, thanks to you Daily Mailygraph types. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Bill D Date: 03 Aug 14 - 06:17 PM A joke from many years ago: A man who doesn't travel much takes a train trip, and after the porter helps him with his luggage, the guy asks shyly:"Umm.. my good man, I am not used to this... what is the average tip people give you?" Porter: "Oh, about $5, suh!" Guy gulps hard and reluctantly fishes out $5 and hands it to the porter. Porter: "Why, thank you, suh! You are the first one in 3 years that's come up to the average!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Rapparee Date: 03 Aug 14 - 09:43 PM Check out: http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/ There is no straight and easy answer but this site might give you more perspective on the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Ed T Date: 03 Aug 14 - 09:51 PM My first job-$2.50 dollars a day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Ed T Date: 03 Aug 14 - 09:53 PM $2.50 per day was for farm work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Ed T Date: 03 Aug 14 - 09:56 PM Last year when visiting the Dominican Republic, a hotel worker told me he made $8.00 USA dollars a day, for 12 hour work day-and that it was considered as good local pay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Bill D Date: 03 Aug 14 - 10:18 PM My father told me that his first job was following the wheat harvest from Oklahoma to South Dakota.... at $2 per day. (about 1925) My first salaried job was in a small grocery store at $00.35 per hour.. in 1955. It lasted 2 weeks before I realized I was being had... even in 1955, it was low. My father was making about $75 a week at that time, after 25+ years at Western Union, and he was buying a house and keeping us fed on that wage. Now, it often takes two salaries to do what he did on one... society has changed - there are so many more 'things' to spend money on, and there is far less incentive for companies to create products for the bottom third of society when there are enough customers who CAN afford the luxuries... or who consider things like 'smart phones' to be necessities and 'adjust' their priorities to fit.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Aug 14 - 12:37 AM All these last few are very good answers; but I am not sure to what question... ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Aug 14 - 03:02 AM I mean -- one knows about fairly petty fluctuations and anomalies, of course. But the difference between "£30 then = £4,000 now" and the obvious resultant conclusion "∴ £10 then = £1,300 now" -- whence, by analogy, a suitable present for a departing nephew -- is, in Hegelian terms, one of those quantitative differences so striking as to constitute a qualitative difference. I can't see that any answer so far has explained or reconciled these anomalies I perceive. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Musket Date: 04 Aug 14 - 03:40 AM If you wish to read.. I don't think your question can be answered. A decent without being daft television now costs less than the average salary for a week, yet in the '70s it cost more than that. Yet the pounds cost, inflation adjusted tells you more about the subjectiveness of inflation calculation than it does anything else.. A decent car, full MOT, tidy and capable of A to B without breaking down costs what compared to a second hand pony & trap in the days of Johnson? In terms of percentage of income? You answered your own question. Quantitive versus qualitative. Your question regarding a tenner for a departing nephew I suppose is in terms of that being an amount you can spend on what you need. If you win £100.00 on the lottery you are quite clear about what you will spend it on and your life goes on as before. Win £50,000,000 and that is life changing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Rob Naylor Date: 04 Aug 14 - 04:48 AM MGMLion: Good points, Bill. But by "smallish amounts" as you copy/paste above, I meant of the actual money, rather than of the goods it could purchase. It seems that £10 was regarded as a reasonable tip (ie a 'smallish amount') for a young man to receive at the end of a visit to older relatives. This would be a "tip" or present from very WEALTHY relatives back then. Imagine a family with similar resources to those of the 16 year old English guy and his Russian girlfriend at private school in UK who recently ran away to the Caribbean and stayed there for a considerable time, using their personal credit cards with limits set by their families. A £1,000 present for people with those resources would be nothing. In fact I know of an 18 year old locally who was given £5,000 for passing his "A" levels. Who knows what the families of people such as Russian oligarchs/ British Hedge Fund managers etc give as tips or presents to their kids these days? In 1800 a private soldier was paid 1 shilling a day, or 5p. A weekly wage of 35p, or using your quoted multiplier, about £45 per week. A colonel of foot was paid 22s 6d per day, 0r £7.875 per week, £1023.75 at your quoted multiplier, around 22 times a private's wage. A colonel of cavalry was paid about half as much again, or an equivalent of £1500 per week. Your lad's tip would have been nearly equal to the weekly wage of a cavalry colonel, so not a "smallish amount" to any but the real top echelons of society. Military officers back then, even senior ones, were not considered "wealthy" by any means, and most of them, to be able to afford their social obligations, needed private income as well as their military pay. The family in Mansfield Park would have had income many times that of even a colonel of cavalry so a £10 tip in their circles would be nothing. So as others have pointed out, you just can't do a linear comparison,as the structure of society has changed, BUT you do need to consider whether a modern Hedge Fund manager who's just drawn £60 million profits from his fund, might not consider dropping a thousand quid on his nephew a fairly modest present. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Aug 14 - 05:14 AM Thanks for carefully considered and calculated answer, Rob. Am turning it over in my mind. Still can't quite visualise the aunt giving the nephew such a sum in actual notes, as Lady Bertram would doubtless have given young William Price a £10 note; but can see she might have written him a cheque, maybe. Good points for consideration, I say again. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Aug 14 - 05:29 AM i.e -- ~I meant that her modern equivalent might write a cheque. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Mo the caller Date: 04 Aug 14 - 12:06 PM I vaguely remember the book. I don't think it was a 'tip' given to a regularly visiting relative. If it was a 'one-off' it puts it in a different category. Something to help him on his way in his chosen profession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Aug 14 - 12:21 PM I think not, Mo. His two aunts, Lady Bertram & her sister Mrs Norris, are comparing how much they had given him; whence we surely extrapolate that, when a visiting young relative left, it would be customary for his entertaining elder family to give him a cash present. So the £10 would appear as a smallish sum, appropriate to be given as a gift ["Sir Thomas said it would be enough"]. But nowadays £1300, even if given as a cheque, would surely be more than enough as a token farewell prezzie! It is true, as you say, that he was not a regular visitor, in the sense of dropping by every week or so; but I don't see that effects my main point about the current value of the sum quoted. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Rapparee Date: 05 Aug 14 - 10:07 AM My first "salary" back in 1958 was US $14 every two weeks -- for which I got to walk 3 miles in all weathers (not all uphill, though) delivering newspaper (about a 40 pound back on each segment of the delivery route, heavier on Sundays). Purchasing power today would be about US $113.00. Purchasing power of my first "real" job's salary would today be about US $37,400 per year. I prefer to use "purchasing power" because I feel that it has the real "flavor" -- what you can buy with it, such as a loaf of bread. No way I could have afforded then or now to "tip" anyone, but if I could have afforded it I might have done so if only to get them out of my house. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Musket Date: 05 Aug 14 - 11:08 AM My first pay check, you could go out, get pissed, fish & chips and get your leg over at the weekend and still give your Mum a bit of board. (Plus saving up for your first Les Paul..) (Carry on ad nauseum.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: KB in Iowa Date: 05 Aug 14 - 12:59 PM Regarding the £10, I read once that Jane Austin was not particularly accurate in the financial aspects of her work. This was regarding Pride and Prejudice and there were specific examples given that clearly did not make sense when looked at side by side. Perhaps Ms. Austin just threw out the £10 figure and it should not be taken literally. Granted, I only read this about her in one source so take it for what it is worth (in today's money). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 05 Aug 14 - 03:30 PM Mrs. Norris seemed as much delighted with the saving it would be to Sir Thomas as with any part of it. “Now William would be able to keep himself, which would make a vast difference to his uncle, for it was unknown how much he had cost his uncle; and, indeed, it would make some difference in her presents too. She was very glad that she had given William what she did at parting, very glad, indeed, that it had been in her power, without material inconvenience, just at that time to give him something rather considerable; that is, for her, with her limited means, for now it would all be useful in helping to fit up his cabin. She knew he must be at some expense, that he would have many things to buy, though to be sure his father and mother would be able to put him in the way of getting everything very cheap; but she was very glad she had contributed her mite towards it.”Boldface by myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: GUEST,# Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:21 PM http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: Rob Naylor Date: 05 Aug 14 - 05:46 PM MGM.Lion: So the £10 would appear as a smallish sum, appropriate to be given as a gift ["Sir Thomas said it would be enough"]. But nowadays £1300, even if given as a cheque, would surely be more than enough as a token farewell prezzie! It is true, as you say, that he was not a regular visitor, in the sense of dropping by every week or so; but I don't see that effects my main point about the current value of the sum quoted. But we're back to the sheer wealth of this family. Think of the type of people who these days spend £4500 on a bottle of wine, give £500 tips to doormen etc....the Bertrams would have been in that league, and a trivial £10 to them would have kept a labourer for half a year. BTW: I doubt very much that she would have given him a £10 note. The only "standard" issue baknotes in circulation at the time were for £1 and £2. Other values tended to be drawn up for specific named depositors by their banks. Paper notes were usually used in a similar way to cheques. Most people would never see a note, metal coins being preferred. A person would have problems having even a £1 note changed "on the street" when making casual purchases and would be much more likely to take the £1 note to a bank and exchange it for maybe a half guinea plus a collection of silver, which would be much more negotiable for casual expenditure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: GUEST,# Date: 05 Aug 14 - 06:25 PM As a kid, I recall when the British pound was worth four Canadian dollars. Of course, bread sold at seventeen cents a loaf (454 mgs). Times has changed, Fester. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Comparative historical values From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Aug 14 - 12:49 AM Probably not a banknote; more likely sovereign coins indeed. Sorry. The Bertrams, tho ancient & landed, not that wealthy, in fact. The younger son has to follow a profession -- one of the 'McGuffins' of the plot; & his choice of it much affects the attitude of the venal and worldly Mary Crawford: and Mr Rushworth with his £12,000 a year a great catch for the elder daughter, much to the misfortune of all -- to the extent that even the principled Sir Thomas, as he conscience-strickenly realises in retrospect, does too little to ensure that Maria really is marrying him purely for worthy motives. Doesn't do to oversimplify the twists & turns of the plot, nor the motivations of the characters, in this supremely subtle and accomplished work. ≈M≈ |
