916
God Bless Us, (lemmy.world)

Everyone

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 160 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

1 pound = 20 shillings.

1 GBP in 1843 is worth £104.72 now (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator)

104.72/20*15=78.54

£78.54 = $99.55USD

99.55/40 (hrs per week) = $2.49USD per hour

Or less, given he likely worked more than 40 hours per week.

But I think we can say that $2.50/hr is a very Scrooge-like wage, and that OP has no fucking clue how to do basic math.

EDIT:

However, from https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/relativevalue.php

1GBP in 1843:

in 1843 there are four choices. In 2021 the relative:

  • real price of that commodity is £104.40
  • labour value of that commodity is £862.70
  • income value of that commodity is £1,409.00
  • economic share of that commodity is £4,601.00
[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago

he likely worked more than 40 hours a week.

a quick Google tells me it was 52 hours / week, which was likely 6 day weeks - so roughly 8-9 hours a day mon thru Saturday

Interestingly, the numbers I found said that Americans at the time worked on average 70 hours / week.

[-] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 4 points 10 months ago

How did you jump from 78.54 to 64.13?

[-] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Oops! Thanks for that. Initially I used 1841 as the year, and later found out it should have been 1843. For some reason there was a huge change in value between 1841 and 1843. That 64.13 was just a leftover I forgot to replace. Fixed!

[-] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago

How do you go from 78.54 (modern pounds equivalent to 15 shillings) to 64.1325? I don't understand that step.

[-] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Oops! Thanks for that. Initially I used 1841 as the year, and later found out it should have been 1843. For some reason there was a huge change in value between 1841 and 1843. That 64.13 was just a leftover I forgot to replace. Fixed!

[-] No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world 82 points 10 months ago

In the 1840s, 15 British shillings would have been equivalent to approximately $3.63 in U.S. dollars at the time. Adjusting for inflation, this amount is equivalent to about $123.24 in today's U.S. dollars.

If someone earned an amount equivalent to $123.24 per week in today's dollars, the daily rate for this income would be approximately $17.61 in today's U.S. dollars.

[-] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Your math is weird. Why are you talking about daily rate, when OP is talking about weekly and hourly?

Where did you get your inflation conversion from? I got my numbers from the Bank of England, and it's about $100usd, not $123usd. 25% margin of error is way off.

$2.49usd per hour is the right answer.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago

"Butbut everyone has a fridge!"

Yea, so does every landfill. Just because we can produce a shitload of things does not magically mean certain people are incapable of taking way too big of a cut.

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago

If Cratchit worked 40 hours a week, then his weekly wage translates to 16.18 pounds per hour, or $20.49/hour.

If Cratchit worked 65 hours a week, which is more likely considering he was overworked during a time in which workers were expected to work more than 60 hours a week, then his weekly wage translates to 9.95 pounds hour, or $12.60/hour.

Source

[-] satanmat@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Thank you. Nuance matters

Thank you for the source. Their context helps.

I’d love to see a third option. But I’m lazy and dumb. What was that equivalent in gold ?

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago

Why does the working class, the largest class, not simply eat the smaller class?

[-] JayJay@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

I'm guessing that assumes 40 hour work weeks which i doubt he worked only 40 hrs a week.

[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't need Charles Dickens to tell me that the US federal minimum wage has gone up $7.00 in 80 years, and that is dysfunctional.

But what the fuck is or was a guinea ?

[-] skooks@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Apparently it was worth 1 pound and 1 shilling

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Bob Cratchit's problem was he couldn't keep it in his pants. Of course he was living in poverty with 15 kids or however many he had.

EDIT: Are people seriously downvoting me for being mean to Bob Cratchit?

[-] webadict@lemmy.world 38 points 10 months ago

You're probably being downvoted for being wrong. In the novel, he had 5 kids, but also the entire point of Bob Cratchit is as an allegory for the working class, so criticizing him for having too many kids is hilariously in line with Ebenezer Scrooge pre-ghosts. You might as well have said that Mr. Cratchit should've let Tiny Tim die so they wouldn't be so poor for maximum irony.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

I apologize to Tiny Tim and the entire Cratchit family for my poor sense of humor.

[-] webadict@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

You're gonna be visited by four ghosts to learn the error of your ways.

[-] rickrolled767@ttrpg.network 11 points 10 months ago

Having a large number of kids was really common during that time period. Back then kids often helped around the house and on the farm; plus it was pretty common for kids to die before reaching adulthood which is another reason for the large number.

It wasn’t until around the 40s or 50s that the 1-3 kids per family became common

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

It was a joke. My goodness!

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

It's not exactly funny though. He didn't have an abnormally large family. In a society where large families are common that society should give higher wages. Scrooge was infamous unfair. Others could see it too. Bob Cratchit's problem was Scrooge. He can have all the sex he wants but your joke has Scrooge controling that part of his life too.

[-] rickrolled767@ttrpg.network 4 points 10 months ago

Gotcha. I’m a bit used to seeing the /s at the end of those so I kinda assumed otherwise

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Currency conversion ?

I don't think scrooge lived in the (un-)united states of america

[-] lseif@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

yeah but: he paid them more and now burgers are more expensive. so...

this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
916 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5387 readers
2007 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS