>> Any evidence for that comment? Even in the last 40 years the poor have
>> not been getting poorer:
>
> You have to remember that poverty is relative. Coming up for 200 years
> ago during the Irish famine. If you were one of the poor, having a metal
> spoon was a luxury. Now if you have not got Sky or cable you are
> deprived. I did not have a colour TV until the 1980's and no one thought
> that was poverty. Although we have had colour transmission since the
> late 70's.

Indeed, that's my point, since 1850 there has been a continuous slope of 
upwards improvement in the wealth of people in real terms. What was 
considered a luxury in 1900 was common-place in 1950, and what was 
considered a luxury in 1950 is common-place today. That trend is not 
changing, and IMO is a large part due to industrialisation, 
mass-production and education. If you look at the income rates before 
1850 it's pretty flat compared to what we've seen in the last 150 years.

This is why I really don't agree with people's reasoning about buying or 
producing locally. That's what we used to do and it's not very 
efficient, the people who would have been doing manual labour in 
factories or fields from the age of 10 are now generating far more 
wealth by being a shop assistant in Tesco or maintaining a machine in a 
food factory. This in turn allows them to have a warm, heated house with 
a hot meal every day, new clothes (and Sky TV, an iPhone and a holiday 
abroad each year etc). Their equivalents from 1900 could only dream of 
such luxuries.

> As someone who has live through 40 years in the UK and then some. I
> think that you are misguided, if not just plain wrong. No matter what
> figures people come up with.

Well I guess there is no more I can say then :-(

Post a reply to this message