4 ms·
Housing is more expensive (relative to other goods) now than in 1300 because the population is so much larger. The population of England in 1300 was something l
by gjm11 11y ago
Housing is more expensive (relative to other goods) now than in 1300 because the population is so much larger. The population of England in 1300 was something like 1/15 of what it is now. Denser population means land costs more -- that's just supply and demand.
Most other things are cheaper than in 1300. Many other things simply didn't exist in 1300.
You mention Louis XIV (who by the way was ~400 years after the time we're talking about). Was he poor? Obviously not. But for much of his life he suffered from health problems that we could probably treat effectively now; only one of his (legitimate) children lived past infancy, whereas now death in infancy is very rare. Medical care of the sort we now take for granted was not available at any price in the time of Louis XIV, let alone in 1300.
Also not available at any price in 1300: Central heating. Running water. Transport faster than, say, 20mph over long distances. Any sort of near-instantaneous long-distance communication.
Do you like books? You can have, for a sum of money a typical professional can easily afford over a few years, a private library better than anyone had in 1300. Do you like music? You can have, for a sum of money a typical professional can easily afford over a few years, hundreds of first-rate professional performances at your fingertips. Do you like fine food? You can have, at prices a typical professional will pay without a moment's thought, ingredients from all over the world that weren't even heard of in 14th-century York. Do you like to play games? You can have a chess grandmaster in your pocket, or buy a thing that fits over your head and creates a very convincing illusion of actually being in a world that doesn't even exist.
Yes, housing is terribly expensive right now. Yes, that's a big problem, it makes a lot of people's lives much worse than they ought to be, and it's easy to imagine ways it could do a lot more damage in the future. But that's pretty much the only thing that's much more expensive now than in 1300, and there are sooooo many things that are much cheaper and/or more available now.
- weareallslaves 11y ago> You mention Louis XIV [...] I mean, that's my point. The fact that "things are less expensive now" is 100% due to the fact that tech has improved, so the poorest of the poor get now things that were inaccessbile to royalty at that time not because things have improved from a societal point of view. Society's dynamics in terms of balances of power have actually gotten much worse from what they used to be in medieval times - think about that.
- odonnellryan 11y agoYou definitely make a good point. A lot of profit and productivity isn't driven back into doing what would make the most sense: making everyone's lives better. But, as a consequence of whatever we're focusing on (what is it really, anyway?) lives have gotten better overall, for everyone. I think everyone would rather live in a Star Trek world. I would. Maybe we could.
- pc86 11y agoYour username indicates you're a troll, but: > Society's dynamics in terms of balances of power have actually gotten much worse from what they used to be in medieval times Please provide some evidence that a laborer in medieval Britain would have had more political power than someone in the middle class today (since medieval laborers were middle class).
- weareallslaves 11y agoWow, nice strawman there. Isn't it enough evidence that laborers back then could buy a good property in the city for 2.5 years of work, and now you'd have to get a very good salary and be lucky to be able to afford the same in maybe 20, 25 years? But given the way you've attacked me, I don't think anything I write here will change your mind.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago> Isn't it enough evidence that laborers back then could buy a good property in the city for 2.5 years of work, and now you'd have to get a very good salary and be lucky to be able to afford the same in maybe 20, 25 years? No, because you're talking about - and I quote - Society's dynamics in terms of balances of power. Buying a good property in the city is a very, very small part of that. Consider that Mayor DeBlasio can't come in and arbitrarily decree that that house is his, now, and so is my wife and horse. Consider that if I don't like his policies, I can run against him, campaign against him, vote against him. Consider that I actually have a fairly good chance of running into him on the street and actually having a critical conversation about his policies without the possibility of being whisked away and beheaded. > But given the way you've attacked me Nobody attacked you, they asked you to back up your thesis with more evidence than "I can't afford to live in New York". You then accused someone of making a strawman argument, when all they did was ask you to compare the same laborer you used against something other than the single point you're offering.