E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhen we think of medieval times we don’t exactly think of prosperity.
But new research finds that the medieval Brits may not have been so bad off financially – and may have been better off than residents of some of the poorest nations today.
Economists at the University of Warwick found that per capita income in England during the late Middle Ages was likely around $1,000 in 1990 dollars.
That’s far higher than the previous per capita income estimate of around $400, which is considered to be enough for a bare bones existence.
It also means that the medieval Brits were actually better off than people living today in nations including Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Haiti.
“Our work sheds new light on England’s economic past, revealing that per capita incomes in medieval England were substantially higher than the ‘bare bones subsistence’ levels experienced by people living in poor countries in our modern world,” Stephen Broadberry, the University of Warwick economist who lead the research, said in a statement.
Broadberry said that by the late Middle Ages, English people were able to afford the occasional luxury, and a diet that included meat, dairy, produce and ale.
For a full copy of the paper, called British Economic Growth 1270-1870, click here.
Leave a Comment:
Take a quick look at The Year 1000: What Life was like at the Turn of the First Millenium, by Lacey & Danziger. It's out of print but lots of used bookstores have copies. Life in England is quite different from what people popularly imagine. The English had no sugar, no spinach, but brain surgery, property developers, and even gossip columnists. Worth reading, and consonant with the article above.
No, I meant what I said. Look it up.
How can you tell an unmet person's political leanings and sheeple factor? Just listen. If they criticize and condemn what they don't know, if they try to use ridicule and shame to cover their own ignorance then it's a pretty safe bet they are democrats :D
And people who use moronic "logic" and fake analysis are most likely Republicans. ;-}
it works.
(kŏn'sə-nənt)
adj.
n.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin cōnsonāns, cōnsonant-, present participle of cōnsonāre, to agree : com-, com- + sonāre, to sound.]
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/consonant#ixzz18lXMW2gS
And the article apparently does not take into acount the factors that may also have enhanced the quality of life: community ties, inter-generational solidarity, shared faith, restraints on competition and stress....
read Dr Leebs(Phd) book "Game Over" may have to head back in that direction once oil goes to 500 dollars a barrel!
Glad to hear things weren't so bad back then, because we here in the U.S. in 2010 are slowly remaking our society into that of medieval Britain. To wit: a permanent and super-wealthy upper class, who increasingly hire their own security; no estate taxes so that upper class kids stay that way even if they are doddering incompetents (see Bush, G. W.); no social mobility, so that the smart and talented who don't happen to be born with money are stuck in a permanent cycle of under-employment and downward mobility; no investment in public infrastructure. In short, government by the rich, of the rich, and for the rich.
So, middle America, rejoice in your present state. Soon you too will be earning $1000 per year.
I just hope they don't never take away my "Dancin with The Stars".
(or my darlin Sarah Palin) Heehee
Sorry, Otter, but the opportunity for upward social and economic mobility still exists. I am from a blue collar family, had a father who was out of work when I was younger, and now at the age of 37 I am one of the evil "wealthy." Oogabooga! Your boogie man tale is not true, but that's O.K. Obama has told you that you are a victim so many times that you actually believe it.
I think you missed Otter's point, that the next generation is not going to be better off. His comment wasn't for you who took advantage of a very good environment for the low and middle class. We are currently seeing public college tuition increasing at a very high rate, funds for federal grants are dwindling, states are reducing funding for k-12 and higher education, and other social programs to help those less fortunate. There will not be money for infrastructure, education and programs to assist in providing opportunities for those to break the cycle if we keep lowering taxes to those that make a good living. Other countries will call our debt as they see it continue to balloon out of control not because of wellfare, but the fact that we funded two wars with debt, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
As the deck is dealt against those that are born into families that don't have the resources, we are losing our middle class.
It is really sad to watch where we are taking our society, yet I make $550,000, have the kids in the private school, have their college paid for, etc. My taxes are $20k-$30k lower under the latest tax extension, yet I feel it is very poor for society. I don't go out and buy additional goods, I sock it away in my investments. There is no trickle down. I want to be prepared, as in the next 5 years the huge US government debt is going to hamper our economy and our livelihood. Interest rates will go back to the 10-15% putting further pressure on those that have debt. I will be in the category of haves, but I still don't think it is fair for the have-nots.
Tom
No body works harder then Americans do, I know what I am saying coming from a different country my first shock was to find out that I will have only three month of Maternity leave, my country gives 3 paid years to the woman to stay home with the baby plus she can keep the job. Americans are taking vacation for a couple of weeks in a year, we go to vacation for a couple of month in a year. Americans probably will start retiring at 69, when most most of the people in the Europe retire in 60-62. I think you don't have enough of so call "demonic socialism" in your country only American dream that slipping away from you as well. Don't get me wrong its strong and a beautiful country and I think that Europeans just bunch of sluggers, but it works for them.
Otter96, I agree 100%, but in addition to G.W. Bush, I would add the late Ted Kennedy as well as many others in the Kennedy clan. Both sides of our so-called political "choices" have been bought.
If you want to see whats in store for this country, just look at Detroit. That's the canary in this coal mine. Soon we're going to have the standard of living that they have in Mumbai. That's who we compete with in our race to the bottom. The unions have been destroyed and our government's been bought. We have no leverage against the upper class.
Was it so bad back then - was it so bad a century ago, we had relatively good mass transportation (trains), national debt was negligible, produced almost everything we used - not that different from medieval Britain or Europe. So today - how's globalization and hopey change working for you, or are you working for it?
Wouldn't it all depend on one's station in life? I doubt if peasants or serfs hadit so well. Of course my attitude is colored by my own life history, but I'm rather fond of frequent hot baths, plentiful food, warm rooms, a college education, and a lack of rats in the house. I've been in many countries where most of those things were fairly rare for the common people, as it once was in Europe and England. Had I lived in those times, what has happened to me medically would have killed me by now- assuming I hadn't died in battle.
And there was also King Arthur! How cool is that?
Londin population 1300 = 50-100K. Then a drastic drop of ~ 50% and a buildup to 200K in 1600. It takes a little income to support that level of population in a city. I'm sure there were many people living at and below the then poverty level, but the indication is that the spread looks a lot like today.
They could afford ale!! Party time.
Arp, you get 10 bonus points for using a word originating from Middle English on a topic about the Middle Ages in the UK.
I'm ur evil super rich. I earn 7.25/hr flipping burgers. Can't be any better.
Emma, business is king in the U.S. and has been for a long time and those donations to their Congress and Senate representatives pay back very well.
Many other countries are far more generous with hours per week, vacation and sick leave. The current austerity hits may change that some, but even with major cutbacks, they still won't be worse than here.
Meanwhile, companies in the U.S. just continually cry about how they can't compete and have to keep cutting costs. Companies that used to have little overtime and decent vacation and sick days laid off many of their employees and now are working the people left harder than ever. Even with only 2-3 weeks of vacation, it's surprising how many people work on vacation or choose to lose the days for fear of keeping their jobs. Those are the lucky ones. Many have had to take pay cuts or are working part-time jobs without benefits since that's all they can find.
The most important things for companies in the U.S. are profits, stock prices, and executive bonuses. Employees are expendable. When you pay your CEO 200 times what the average employee makes, you have to cut somewhere and it's not going to be the executives or their benefit plans.
It wasn't until the Capitalists showed up in the mid 1800's, during the infamous British Industrial Revolution, that the people starved. With new machinery and illegal immigration from Ireland, the Capitalists drove the British working class into disaster. Before that, there was freedom to use the land, to hunt, pasture and gather food, along with a robust cottage industry producing all sorts of products, allowing the peasants a decent standard of living. After that the government took the side of profits and the Industrialists, to destroy the peasant's way of life. Sound familiar????
Mel Brooks had a TV series that lasted for the blink of an eye called "When Things Were Rotten". It was a comedy set in medieval England. Maybe it was really a documentary of the good old days?
Were those figures for the serfs, or were they just for the titled folk?
Just because the landowner made the equivalent of 400 bucks a year doesn't mean his serfs (people tied to the land and who essentially slaved for him) reaped the benefits of that income.