3 ms·

I'm trying to figure out why this article says paper wasn't expensive, using the example that a laborer could by 75 sheets of paper for a day's wages. Today, I

I'm trying to figure out why this article says paper wasn't expensive, using the example that a laborer could by 75 sheets of paper for a day's wages. Today, I can by 5 times that amount, for about 10 minutes of wages. By today's standards, that translates to over $1,000 for a ream of paper.

earthicus 7y ago
I think you might be making the wrong comparison. We can conclude from your observation that their paper is expensive (relative to ours), or that our paper is dirt cheap! A laborer today might make $120/day so that's $1.60/sheet at early modern prices. While that's expensive compared to our super cheap modern paper, it's perfectly normal to describe things that cost $1.60 as inexpensive, even if you buy quite a few of them. The article says the average englishman used 6 sheets a day, so a modern laborer is spending under $10/day on paper.
- jaclaz 7y ago
  >The article says the average englishman used 6 sheets a day, so a modern laborer is spending under $10/day on paper. Somehow it must be put in the equation that "the average laborer making 6-12 pence a day" that "could purchase up to 75 sheets of paper with a day’s wages" likely had NO use whatever of the paper as he/she wouldn't know how to read and write. In any case, a single day labourer's wage covered the expenses for the paper needs for more than twelve years (the article says that the average consumptions were 6 sheets per year, not per day), now, did you spend more or less than $12 for paper last year? (and - as a side note - compare the expense for pencils and ink against those for a modern - crappy BTW - inkjet printer cartridges) On the other hand, if it was so cheap, most probably we wouldn't have needed some 350 years for the demonstration of Fermat's last theorem ;-).
  - earthicus 7y ago
    Oops, how could I misread 6 sheets per year as 6 sheets per day! o_0 Thanks for pointing out my error, this makes much more sense now.

earthicus 7y ago

I think you might be making the wrong comparison. We can conclude from your observation that their paper is expensive (relative to ours), or that our paper is dirt cheap! A laborer today might make $120/day so that's $1.60/sheet at early modern prices. While that's expensive compared to our super cheap modern paper, it's perfectly normal to describe things that cost $1.60 as inexpensive, even if you buy quite a few of them. The article says the average englishman used 6 sheets a day, so a modern laborer is spending under $10/day on paper.

jaclaz 7y ago
>The article says the average englishman used 6 sheets a day, so a modern laborer is spending under $10/day on paper. Somehow it must be put in the equation that "the average laborer making 6-12 pence a day" that "could purchase up to 75 sheets of paper with a day’s wages" likely had NO use whatever of the paper as he/she wouldn't know how to read and write. In any case, a single day labourer's wage covered the expenses for the paper needs for more than twelve years (the article says that the average consumptions were 6 sheets per year, not per day), now, did you spend more or less than $12 for paper last year? (and - as a side note - compare the expense for pencils and ink against those for a modern - crappy BTW - inkjet printer cartridges) On the other hand, if it was so cheap, most probably we wouldn't have needed some 350 years for the demonstration of Fermat's last theorem ;-).
- earthicus 7y ago
  Oops, how could I misread 6 sheets per year as 6 sheets per day! o_0 Thanks for pointing out my error, this makes much more sense now.