Everyone

  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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
  • No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    11 months ago

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

        • Godric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Siding with reality, thanks! My complaint still lies with you, as ignorance is not an excuse to repeatedly post straight lies. You can be better.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            What’s the lie? It’s not my tweet, or my math. I took it at face value, and others in this thread have confirmed that it is fairly accurate. You don’t like me, that’s fine. But making shit up because you don’t like me is petty and immature.

            • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Literally nobody in this thread is saying it’s accurate. You taking unconfirmed information and spreading is the definition of misinformation. Something you’ve got quite the reputation for doing.

                • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  That’s ironic coming from you. Choose to stop spreading misinformation. You’re literally ruining lemmy with your constant lies.

  • JayJay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

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

  • x4740N@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Currency conversion ?

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

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      11 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.

    • rickrolled767@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 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

        • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 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.