3 ms·
Nope, this is typical of the crap that you see quite frequently. We're not comparing 1600's wages to today, we're comparing them to wages in that era. Of cours
by pm90 8y ago
Nope, this is typical of the crap that you see quite frequently.
We're not comparing 1600's wages to today, we're comparing them to wages in that era. Of course this was a pre-industrialized society, but it wasn't a society mired in poverty as most people imagine it to be.
- iguy 8y agoI don't know why you're insulting me when it sounds like you agree with me. You can compare different regions at the same time, and in the pre-industrial world, per-capita incomes didn't vary a whole lot -- maybe over a factor of 2. Whether you want to call this "mired in poverty" or not depends on your taste in adjectives, but India was not exceptional. The huge differences (factors of 10, even 100) arose only later, because of some pulling ahead.