8 ms·

List of prices of medieval items (2009)

73 points by benbreen 11y ago

benbreen 11y ago
Came across this via HN user raddad's comment in a thread yesterday about medieval music and thought it was interesting enough to stand on its own: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11607392#up_11608211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11607392#up_11608211
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Xophmeister 11y ago
It would be interesting to see what those values are equivalent to in today's money. Of course, that might be pretty hard to estimate given they pre-date any central bank and presumably the notion of interest rates. Perhaps the variety of goods listed here could be used to estimate some semblance of a comparable RPI.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Various people have worked on this kind of thing, such as https://measuringworth.com/gold/ https://measuringworth.com/gold/ "The Price of Gold, 1257 - Present", their broader purchasing power calculator https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/ https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/ or this big archive: http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.h... Classical studies have reasonably good models of the Roman economy, its inflation and comparative prices for goods and services.
weareallslaves 11y ago
So, from the document: Row house in York (well built) -> 5£ Also: Laborer wage -> 2£/year In 1300, 2.5 years of wages bought a good property in York. Interesting. Also, using pjc50's linked calculator: https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/relativevalue.php?use[]=CPI&use[]=NOMINALEARN&year_early=1300&pound71=5&shilling71=&pence71=&amount=5&year_source=1300&year_result=2016 https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/relativ... 5£ in 1300 are more or less equivalent to £3,534.00 in 2014's purchasing power. I don't think I can rent a house in York for a year for that kind of money. What's going on? It looks like that 1300's little folk was better off than we are. Technology has improved, but social distances are bigger than ever. Yes, we have heating and the internet and all that, but if you look back Louis XIV didn't have any of that... does that mean he was poor? God I despise this world so much.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Well the website you link to has several different calculations for £5 1300 in modern money. The "real price" is £3,534 but the "labour earnings" is £69,140 which would certainly enable you rent/buy a property in York.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    That's over 2.5 years, not per year.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  I don't think the fixed basket of goods is the best measure of purchasing power for this case. I'd use the income value (aka "economic status") as a comparison, since IMO, you're really trying to scratch at "what is two and a half year's income worth now vs back then?" That figure is £181,600.00 from the same page you link, or £72,640.00/year. Now, why don't laborers make that much now is an interesting question perhaps. I suspect it's because the relative position of a laborer in 1300 was middle of society and today it's not. Consider how valuable a strong, healthy, reliable worker would have been then compared to today. There's also a labor figure on that page, which would amount to £27,656/yr, which seems inline (perhaps slightly low) for a laborer today.
- iamthepieman 11y ago
  With a 50k salary you can afford a 125k house at the same 1300 ratio. This seems about right for a rural area but not, of course, for an urban one. Of course neither the laborer in 1300 or today is able to spend their full salary for 2.5 years straight on a dwelling. They would have to save over a much longer period of time as that 2 pounds a year has to cover food, clothing, coal etc. Sure both Louis and the laborer didn't have central heating and the internet but Louis could afford whatever WAS available for luxury and the laborer today can afford those 'luxuries' that even royalty didn't have access to 700 years ago. Not saying social differences aren't huge but they are influenced by perception, social norms, media, and both absoulte and relative levels of comfort/luxury. It's hard to compare directly.
  - 11y ago
dredmorbius 11y ago
Gregory Clark (economics, UC Davis) has a prive history of English agriculture from 1209 to 1914. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Agprice.pdf http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Agprice.pd... Adam Smith discusses prices and notes that whilst silver prices are more uniform across the decades, corn (grain) prices are across the centuries. Daily food is a pretty good constant, after factoring out annual ag variability.
elcapitan 11y ago
I wonder if it makes sense to use the notion of a 'price' when talking about former times? Prices as in list prices seems to be a relatively modern phenomenon. One thing you notice when being outside of modern places is that price tends to be completely based on who asks whom. In many shops you'll only find products and then get a price when asking.
- rdancer 11y ago
  Even in modern times, only suckers pay retail. That has ever been true, and ever will. Price in economic terms is whatever is paid. The list has for example different prices for ale, wine, and uni education. The descriptions seem to indicate both difference in quality and the affluence (or negotiation skills) of the buyer.
  - cpach 11y ago
    ”Even in modern times, only suckers pay retail” What does that mean? Is one a sucker for going to the store and paying list price for e.g. bread?
    - elcapitan 11y ago
      Having retail prices is actually the best way to avoid being the sucker, because the "old" way - I think - was that you would have to pay an arbitrary price otherwise.
    - rdancer 11y ago
      Yes. Please note I borrowed the phrase "only suckers pay retail" from someone much older and wiser than I. It reveals a powerful and profound truth about the relationship between a seller and a buyer in a retail situation. You can get that stick of bread cheaper (bulk discount, in-store offers, credit card cashback) or more convenient (free delivery, freshly baked). And those are just the publicly available ways, no extra hassle and for everybody. If you are willing to drive a really hard bargain, you can usually negotiate a price slightly below cost (that's why retail can be cheaper than wholesale). Sociopaths can get to negative price, but not everybody has a stomach for that. Maybe it is not a burden for you to pay $3 every day to have fresh bread, and maybe you don't eat that much of it anyway. But the same applies to a computer, a house, equity share, even loan rate. If it is a standard agreement, if it is the public offer, if it is the sticker price, you can go way down and still make an equitable deal. And if you don't care about the relationship, you can go even lower and still get good deal just for yourself. If you are on the selling end, it is even more important you understand this, even if just to avoid toxic customers. Conversely, you should pay more than the sticker price when it makes sense. I do much better service for my customers who are more valuable to me, because I don't want to lose them. If you want better service, demand to be treated specially and insist to pay more.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
Another interesting price fact: the price of bulk wheat has stayed relatively constant in British pounds for the last 800 years or so, staying at about 1 pound per bushel. We've had more inflation in the price of wheat in the last ten years than we had in the previous 800. A bushel of wheat contains about 66,000 calories. So that laborer making 2£/year wouldn't be able to afford wheat -- that's one reason the food price list has a price for oats, but not bread or wheat.

73 points by benbreen 11y ago

Came across this via HN user raddad's comment in a thread yesterday about medieval music and thought it was interesting enough to stand on its own: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11607392#up_11608211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11607392#up_11608211

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Xophmeister 11y ago

It would be interesting to see what those values are equivalent to in today's money. Of course, that might be pretty hard to estimate given they pre-date any central bank and presumably the notion of interest rates. Perhaps the variety of goods listed here could be used to estimate some semblance of a comparable RPI.

pjc50 11y ago
Various people have worked on this kind of thing, such as https://measuringworth.com/gold/ https://measuringworth.com/gold/ "The Price of Gold, 1257 - Present", their broader purchasing power calculator https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/ https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/ or this big archive: http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.h... Classical studies have reasonably good models of the Roman economy, its inflation and comparative prices for goods and services.

weareallslaves 11y ago

So, from the document: Row house in York (well built) -> 5£ Also: Laborer wage -> 2£/year In 1300, 2.5 years of wages bought a good property in York. Interesting. Also, using pjc50's linked calculator: https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/relativevalue.php?use[]=CPI&use[]=NOMINALEARN&year_early=1300&pound71=5&shilling71=&pence71=&amount=5&year_source=1300&year_result=2016 https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/relativ... 5£ in 1300 are more or less equivalent to £3,534.00 in 2014's purchasing power. I don't think I can rent a house in York for a year for that kind of money. What's going on? It looks like that 1300's little folk was better off than we are. Technology has improved, but social distances are bigger than ever. Yes, we have heating and the internet and all that, but if you look back Louis XIV didn't have any of that... does that mean he was poor? God I despise this world so much.

cmdkeen 11y ago
Well the website you link to has several different calculations for £5 1300 in modern money. The "real price" is £3,534 but the "labour earnings" is £69,140 which would certainly enable you rent/buy a property in York.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  That's over 2.5 years, not per year.
sokoloff 11y ago
I don't think the fixed basket of goods is the best measure of purchasing power for this case. I'd use the income value (aka "economic status") as a comparison, since IMO, you're really trying to scratch at "what is two and a half year's income worth now vs back then?" That figure is £181,600.00 from the same page you link, or £72,640.00/year. Now, why don't laborers make that much now is an interesting question perhaps. I suspect it's because the relative position of a laborer in 1300 was middle of society and today it's not. Consider how valuable a strong, healthy, reliable worker would have been then compared to today. There's also a labor figure on that page, which would amount to £27,656/yr, which seems inline (perhaps slightly low) for a laborer today.
iamthepieman 11y ago
With a 50k salary you can afford a 125k house at the same 1300 ratio. This seems about right for a rural area but not, of course, for an urban one. Of course neither the laborer in 1300 or today is able to spend their full salary for 2.5 years straight on a dwelling. They would have to save over a much longer period of time as that 2 pounds a year has to cover food, clothing, coal etc. Sure both Louis and the laborer didn't have central heating and the internet but Louis could afford whatever WAS available for luxury and the laborer today can afford those 'luxuries' that even royalty didn't have access to 700 years ago. Not saying social differences aren't huge but they are influenced by perception, social norms, media, and both absoulte and relative levels of comfort/luxury. It's hard to compare directly.
- 11y ago

dredmorbius 11y ago

Gregory Clark (economics, UC Davis) has a prive history of English agriculture from 1209 to 1914. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Agprice.pdf http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Agprice.pd... Adam Smith discusses prices and notes that whilst silver prices are more uniform across the decades, corn (grain) prices are across the centuries. Daily food is a pretty good constant, after factoring out annual ag variability.

elcapitan 11y ago

I wonder if it makes sense to use the notion of a 'price' when talking about former times? Prices as in list prices seems to be a relatively modern phenomenon. One thing you notice when being outside of modern places is that price tends to be completely based on who asks whom. In many shops you'll only find products and then get a price when asking.

rdancer 11y ago
Even in modern times, only suckers pay retail. That has ever been true, and ever will. Price in economic terms is whatever is paid. The list has for example different prices for ale, wine, and uni education. The descriptions seem to indicate both difference in quality and the affluence (or negotiation skills) of the buyer.
- cpach 11y ago
  ”Even in modern times, only suckers pay retail” What does that mean? Is one a sucker for going to the store and paying list price for e.g. bread?
  - elcapitan 11y ago
    Having retail prices is actually the best way to avoid being the sucker, because the "old" way - I think - was that you would have to pay an arbitrary price otherwise.
  - rdancer 11y ago
    Yes. Please note I borrowed the phrase "only suckers pay retail" from someone much older and wiser than I. It reveals a powerful and profound truth about the relationship between a seller and a buyer in a retail situation. You can get that stick of bread cheaper (bulk discount, in-store offers, credit card cashback) or more convenient (free delivery, freshly baked). And those are just the publicly available ways, no extra hassle and for everybody. If you are willing to drive a really hard bargain, you can usually negotiate a price slightly below cost (that's why retail can be cheaper than wholesale). Sociopaths can get to negative price, but not everybody has a stomach for that. Maybe it is not a burden for you to pay $3 every day to have fresh bread, and maybe you don't eat that much of it anyway. But the same applies to a computer, a house, equity share, even loan rate. If it is a standard agreement, if it is the public offer, if it is the sticker price, you can go way down and still make an equitable deal. And if you don't care about the relationship, you can go even lower and still get good deal just for yourself. If you are on the selling end, it is even more important you understand this, even if just to avoid toxic customers. Conversely, you should pay more than the sticker price when it makes sense. I do much better service for my customers who are more valuable to me, because I don't want to lose them. If you want better service, demand to be treated specially and insist to pay more.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

Another interesting price fact: the price of bulk wheat has stayed relatively constant in British pounds for the last 800 years or so, staying at about 1 pound per bushel. We've had more inflation in the price of wheat in the last ten years than we had in the previous 800. A bushel of wheat contains about 66,000 calories. So that laborer making 2£/year wouldn't be able to afford wheat -- that's one reason the food price list has a price for oats, but not bread or wheat.