Economy and quality of life "Back in the day"

Reading "Road to Wiggan Pier" again. Picked it up cause' my friend was saying how much worse it is to live/work now, compared to "back in the day". Despite being full of relatable similarities to the current day, I found this particular excerpt at the beginning especially relevant.

>Joe, like the Scotchman, was a great reader of newspapers and spent
almost his entire day in the public library. He was the typical unmarried
unemployed man, a derelict-looking, frankly ragged creature with a round,
almost childish face on which there was a naively naughty expression. He
looked more like a neglected little boy than a grown-up man. I suppose it
is the complete lack of responsibility that makes so many of these men look
younger than their ages. From Joe's appearance I took him to be about
twenty-eight, and was amazed to learn that he was forty-three. He had a
love of resounding phrases and was very proud of the astuteness with which
he had avoided getting married. He often said to me, 'Matrimonial chains is
a big item,' evidently feeling this to be a very subtle and portentous
remark. His total income was fifteen shillings a week, and he paid out six
or seven to the Brookers for his bed. I sometimes used to see him making
himself a cup of tea over the kitchen fire, but for the rest he got his
meals somewhere out of doors; it was mostly slices of bread-and-marg and
packets of fish and chips, I suppose.

I guess NEET's, Virgin's, Simp's and Neckbeard's still existed. Rather than congregating online they had Newspapers to shitpost and public libraries for voyeur porn/live arguments.

Attached: wigan-pier-site-of.jpg (900x568, 90.77K)

"Before I had been in the coal areas I shared the wide-spread illusion that miners are comparatively well paid. One hears it loosely stated that a miner is paid ten or eleven shillings a shift, and one does a small multiplication sum and concludes that every miner is earning round about L2 a week or L150 a year. But the statement that a miner receives ten or eleven shillings a shift is very misleading. To begin with, it is only the actual coal 'getter' who is paid at this rate; a 'dataller', for instance,
who attends to the roofing, is paid at a lower rate, usually eight or nine shillings a shift. Again, when the coal 'getter' is paid piecework, so much per ton extracted, as is the case in many mines, he is dependent on the quality of the coal; a breakdown in the machinery or a 'fault'--that is, a streak of rock running through the coal seam--may rob him of his earnings for a day or two at a time. But in any case one ought not to think of the miner as working six days a week, fifty-two weeks a year. Almost
certainly there will be a number of days when he is' laid off'. The average earning per shift worked for every mine-worker, of all ages and both sexes in Great Britain in 1934, was 9s. 1 3/4d. [From the Colliery Tear Book and Coal Trades Directory for 1935.] If everyone were in work all the time, this would mean that the mine-worker was earning a little over L142 a
year, or nearly L2 15s. a week. His real income, however, is far lower than this, for the 9s. 1 3/4d. is merely an average calculation on shifts actually worked and takes no account of blank days.'

Sounds alot like when I almost got talked into going into the oil patch in back when it was booming, right out of highschool, only The AVERAGE salary for a miner in the 1930's would have been around 150 Euro per year...At least thats what your drunk miner buddy tells you at the pub, likely trying to convince you to come work. Today that would be £10,446.89 per year...

Attached: Pit mining.jpg (277x182, 11.44K)

I cant b0nk!
>d0b0!!!
Buy now and ygmi!
>dogeb0nk

Another thing my friend was claiming, is that its impossible for him (university educated) to afford a house now a days. He said the further back you go the better things got, that everyone could afford a nice house with a 1 adult income. Leaving the wife free to care for the kids, with no need to pursue a career outside the home.


'Housing shortage' is a phrase that has been bandied about pretty
freely since the war, but it means very little to anyone with an income of
more than L10 a week, or even L5 a week for that matter. Where rents are
high the difficulty is not to find houses but to find tenants. Walk down
any street in Mayfair and you will see 'To Let' boards in half the windows.
But in the industrial areas the mere difficulty of getting hold of a house
is one of the worst aggravations of poverty. It means that people will put
up with anything--any hole and corner slum, any misery of bugs and
rotting floors and cracking walls, any extortion of skinflint landlords and
blackmailing agents--simply to get a roof over their heads. I have been
into appalling houses, houses in which I would not live a week if you paid
me, and found that the tenants had been there twenty and thirty years and
only hoped they might have the luck to die there.

Attached: MartinsLane.jpg (591x800, 130.82K)

Contd: In general these
conditions are taken as a matter of course, though not always. Some people
hardly seem to realize that such things as decent houses exist and look on
bugs and leaking roofs as acts of God; others rail bitterly against their
landlords; but all cling desperately to their houses lest worse should
befall. So long as the housing shortage continues the local authorities
cannot do much to make existing houses more livable. They can 'condemn' a
house, but they cannot order it to be pulled down till the tenant has
another house to go to; and so the condemned houses remain standing and are
all the worse for being condemned, because naturally the landlord will not
spend more than he can help on a house which is going to be demolished
sooner or later. In a town like Wigan, for instance, there are over two
thousand houses standing which have been condemned for years, and whole
sections of the town would be condemned en bloc if there were any hope of
other houses being built to replace them. Towns like Leeds and Sheffield
have scores of thousands of 'back to back' houses which are all of a
condemned type but will remain standing for decades.

Attached: Dorset-street-1902.jpg (1276x879, 216.06K)

This is a good read, thanks OP. Lurking for more

Thanks OP, interesting read, might pick up the book myself

>in the 1930'
This lil nigga really went back to great depression to find an example of worse times than today lmao 😆

Stop spamming every fucking thread, there is a /dbg/ that's where you belong

Good stuff user. You should take a look at "A Fortunate Life" by AB Facey, the memoir of an Australian who was born in 1894 and was basically sold to cattle rustlers as cheap labour at 8 years old. Hardship on a level that is almost incomprehensible in this day and age.

Thanks man...yeah so here is a few differnt housing options.


1. House in Beech Hill Estate.

Downstairs. Large living-room with kitchener fireplace, cup-boards,
and fixed dresser, composition floor. Small hallway, largish kitchen. Up to
date electric cooker hired from Corporation at much the same rate as a gas
cooker.

Upstairs. Two largish bedrooms, one tiny one--suitable only for a
boxroom or temporary bedroom. Bathroom, w.c., with hot and cold water.

Smallish garden. These vary throughout the estate, but mostly
rather smaller than an allotment.

Four in family, parents and two children. Husband in good employ.
Houses appear well built and are quite agreeable to look at. Various
restrictions, e.g. it is forbidden to keep poultry or pigeons, take in
lodgers, sub-let, or start any kind of business with-out leave from the
Corporation. (This is easily granted in the case of taking in lodgers, but
not in any of the others.) Tenant' very well satisfied with house and proud
of it. Houses in this estate all well kept. Corporation are good about
repairs, but keep tenants up to the mark with regard to keeping the place
tidy, etc.

Rent 11s. 3d. including rates. Bus fare into town 2d.

Attached: new-york-19th-century-slums.jpg (1200x600, 182.82K)

Kek, the author is seething so hard at the based eternally young NEET.

Attached: 1647625290873.jpg (182x250, 4.26K)

2. House in Welly Estate.

Downstairs. Living-room 14 ft by 10 ft, kitchen a good deal
smaller, tiny larder under stairs, small but fairly good bathroom. Gas
cooker, electric lighting. Outdoor w.c.

Upstairs. One bedroom 12 ft by 10 ft with tiny fireplace, another
the same size without fireplace, another 7 ft by 6 ft. Best bedroom has
small wardrobe let into wall. 'Garden about 20 yards by 10.

Six in family, parents and four children, eldest son nineteen,
eldest daughter twenty-two. None in work except eldest son. Tenants very
discontented. Their complaints are: 'House is cold, draughty, and damp.
Fireplace in living-room gives out no heat and makes room very dusty--
attributed to its being set too low. Fireplace in best bedroom too small to
be of any use. Walls upstairs cracking. Owing to uselessness of tiny
bedroom, five are sleeping in one bedroom, one (the eldest son) in the
other.'

Gardens in this estate all neglected.

Rent 10s. 3d., inclusive. Distance to town a little over a mile--
there is no bus here.

>Keep in mind you would only be earning 12.5 pounds per month if you were doing well.

>Not too sure but I think there are 15 (22 exactly) shillings to a pound, and 12 pence (d) to a shilling. I am not a brit (North American) so this system of currency if foregin to me

Attached: IRish.jpg (240x210, 10.12K)

>Hardship on a level that is almost incomprehensible in this day and age.
Half of it is overexagerated souvenirs. It's like when you ask a boomer how it was when he was young and his description almost matches the living standard of a POW in Roman's mines of salt.

Welfare queens where also a thing


I could multiply examples, but these two are enough, as the types of
Corporation houses being built do not vary greatly from place to place. Two
things are immediately obvious. The first is that at their very worst the
Corporation houses are better than the slums they replace. The mere
possession of a bathroom and a bit of garden would out-weigh almost any
disadvantage. The other is that they are much more expensive to live in. It
is common enough for a man to be turned out of a condemned house where he
is paying six or seven shillings a week and given a Corporation house where
he has to pay ten. This only affects those who are in work or have recently
been in work, because when a man is on the P.A.C. his rent is assessed at a
quarter of his dole, and if it is more than this he gets an extra
allowance

Attached: lower-east-side-tenement-block.jpg (2311x1342, 416.98K)

>From Joe's appearance I took him to be about twenty-eight, and was amazed to learn that he was forty-three.
this is why i cant be a wageslave you just destroy your body and people think its normal

And gentrification of the inner city and hoodification of suburbs, along with other tidbits that cannot help but remind one of problems of today.

And
again there is the expense, especially for a man in work, of getting to and
from town. This last is one of the more obvious problems of rehousing. Slum
clearance means diffusion of the population. When you rebuild on a large
scale, what you do in effect is to scoop out the centre of the town and
redistribute it on the outskirts. This is all very well in a way; you have
got the people out of fetid alleys into places where they have room to
breathe; but from the point of view of the people themselves, what you have
done is to pick them up and dump them down five miles from their work. The
simplest solution is flats. If people are going to live in large towns at
all they must learn to live on top of one another. But the northern working
people do not take kindly to flats; even where fiats exist they are
contemptuously named 'tenements'. Almost everyone will tell you that he
'wants a house of his own', and apparently a house in the middle of an
unbroken block of houses a hundred yards long seems to them more 'their
own' than a flat situated in mid-air.

Attached: 3.jpg (490x705, 111.53K)

I cannot help but feel like my generation is suffering slightly from a sense of dis-enfranchisement from the system, and an apathy towards the future. Especially people in a certain demographic (Young white males)

As I said
earlier, the English working class do not show much capacity for
leadership, but they have a wonderful talent for organization. The whole
trade union movement testifies to this; so do the excellent working-men's
clubs--really a sort of glorified cooperative pub, and splendidly
organized--which are so common in Yorkshire. In many towns the N.U.W.M.
have shelters and arrange speeches by Communist speakers. But even at these
shelters the men who go there do nothing but sit round the stove and
occasionally play a game of dominoes. If this move-met could be combined
with something along the lines of the occupational centres, it would be
nearer what is needed. It is a deadly thing to see a skilled man running to
seed, year after year, in utter, hopeless idleness. It ought not to be
impossible to give him the chance of using his hands and making furniture
and so forth for his own home, with-out turning him into a Y.M.C.A. cocoa-
drunkard. We may as well face the fact that several million men in England
will--unless another war breaks out--never have a real job this side
the grave. One thing that probably could be done and certainly ought to be
done as a matter of course is to give every unemployed man a patch of
ground and free tools if he chose to apply for them. It is disgraceful that
men who are expected to keep alive on the P.A.C. should not even have the
chance to grow vegetables for their families.

Attached: 559056431a176ab84b304d82865f24c2.jpg (819x1023, 88.05K)

Lol kek comparing how great we have it now to the Great Depression. My thoughts exactly user.

>society had already reached the point where there were too many people and not enough work to do
its crazy how the advent of the internet etc has managed to create such an insane volume of really pointless busywork and in spite of everything working 8+ hours a day is still the typical norm instead of breaking down labour and spreading it more evenly

When
people live on the dole for years at a time they grow used to it, and
drawing the dole, though it remains unpleasant, ceases to be shameful. Thus
the old, independent, workhouse-fearing tradition is undermined, just as
the ancient fear of debt is undermined by the hire-purchase system. In the
back streets of Wigan and Barnsley I saw every kind of privation, but I
probably saw much less conscious misery than I should have seen ten years
ago. The people have at any rate grasped that unemployment is a thing they
cannot help. It is not only Alf Smith who is out of work now; Bert Jones is
out of work as well, and both of them have been 'out' for years. It makes a
great deal of difference when things are the same for everybody.

We arent quite there yet, at least here in Canada. Our economy is actually doing quite well now that covid is over, in my trade (Welder) we are going through a bit of a boom. Yet I hear quite a few of both Uni educated and "trade" (roofers ect) workers around my age (20's) say "there are NO jobs rn, Especially ones that pay a LIVING WAGE, I mean, I make 500 dollars a weekend in tips as a server, but I cant afford a house (1 mil they will quote) on that"

Attached: Love_on_the_Dole.jpg (258x375, 38.83K)

Shit man I'm too lazy to check but this aint actually all that bad for UN-employment insurance either lol

When a man is first unemployed, until his insurance stamps are
exhausted, he draws 'full benefit', of which the rates are as follows:


per week

Single man 17s.
Wife 9s.
Each child below 14 3s.


Thus in a typical family of parents and three children of whom one was
over fourteen, the total income would be 32s. per week, plus anything that
might be earned by the eldest child. When a man's stamps are exhausted,
before being turned over to the P.A.C. (Public Assistance Committee), he
receives twenty-six weeks' 'transitional benefit' from the U.A.B.
(Unemployment Assistance Board), the rates being as follows:
per week

Single man 15s.
Man and wife 24s.
Children 14-18 6s.
Children 11-14 4s. 6d.
Children 8-11 4s.
Children 5-8 3s. 6d.
Children 3-5 3s.


Thus on the U.A.B. the income of the typical family of five persons
would be 37s. 6d. a week if no child was in work. When a man is on the
U.A.B. a quarter of his dole is regarded as rent, with a minimum of 7s. 6d.
a week. If the rent he is paying is more than a quarter of his dole he
receives an extra allowance, but if it is less than 7s. 6d., a
corresponding amount is deducted. Payments on the P.A.C. theoretically
comes out of the local rates, but are backed by a central fund. The rates
of benefit are:


per week

Single man 12s. 6d.
Man and wife 23s.
Eldest child 4s.
Any other child 3s.

Attached: mev-10089172.jpg (1050x798, 139.77K)

Yeah its a good one. I really like Down and Out in Paris and London. Almost more in fact...

Will do once I get the time. My book stack is already large, but I got this one written down on a sticky note and put it on a book I gotta return to the library (good habit to remember what you wanna pick up)

I dont browse on Any Forums much, I just thought maybe this would be the place to share it...What are your guys opinion on the current state of affairs?

It seems once again soi-boys are in fact eternal. It could be this decline HAS started with WW1 and we have beeen feeling the effects ever since!

Where are the monstrous men with chests like barrels and moustaches like
the wings of eagles who strode across my child-hood's gaze twenty or thirty
years ago? Buried, I suppose, in the Flanders mud. In their place there are
these pale-faced boys who have been picked for their height and
consequently look like hop-poles in overcoats--the truth being that in
modern England a man over six feet high is usually skin and bone and not
much else. If the English physique has declined, this is no doubt partly
due to the fact that the Great War carefully selected the million best men
in England and slaughtered them, largely before they had had time to breed.
But the process must have begun earlier than that, and it must be due
ultimately to un-healthy ways of living, i.e. to industrialism. I don't
mean 'the habit of living in towns--probably the town is healthier than
the country, in many ways--but the modern industrial technique which
provides you with cheap substitutes for everything. We may find in the long
run that tinned food is a deadlier weapon than the machine gun.

Attached: e7eaf15f3fc8a26c9c8e0b6a95478ad9.jpg (800x580, 153.07K)

White people are hilarious.

People still wasted food.

It is unfortunate that the English working class--the English nation
generally, for that matter--are exception-ally ignorant about and
wasteful of food. I have pointed out elsewhere how civilized is a French
navvy's idea of a meal compared with an Englishman's, and I cannot believe
that you would ever see such wastage in a French house as you habitually
see in English ones. Of course, in the very poorest homes, where everybody
is unemployed, you don't see much actual waste, but those who can afford to
waste food often do so. I could give startling instances of this. Even the
Northern habit of baking one's own bread is slightly wasteful in itself,
because an overworked woman cannot bake more than once or, at most, twice a
week and it is impossible to tell beforehand how much bread will be wasted,
so that a certain amount generally has to be thrown away. The usual thing
is to bake six large loaves and twelve small ones at a time. All this is
part of the old, generous English attitude to life, and it is an amiable
quality, but a disastrous one at the present moment.

Attached: c54b54980403c1b3aaf7e82e06b69d3a--old-london-the-s.jpg (650x403, 81.92K)