5 ms·

yes, according to officialdata.org, 225 pounds in 1860 would be approximately 30,000 pounds today [1]. Admittedly, not enough for a family with seven children,

by sn41 4y ago

yes, according to officialdata.org, 225 pounds in 1860 would be approximately 30,000 pounds today [1]. Admittedly, not enough for a family with seven children, but an annual income of 30,000 pounds is hardly "extreme penury" except for the really well-off. I agree that perhaps the real issue was the cost involved in bringing up and educating her children. Even with all this misfortune, all of them seem to have done well later. [1] https://www.officialdata.org/1860-GBP-in-2017?amount=225 https://www.officialdata.org/1860-GBP-in-2017?amount=225

willcipriano 4y ago
That's slightly higher than minimum wage in the US.
- sn41 4y ago
  The minimum wage of about $7.25 per hour, 40 hrs per week, 52 weeks comes to $15,080 which is around 12,000 GBP. So the pension is 2.5 times the minimum wage level. Please note: I am not attacking the article or the poor lady - I am just pointing out that what sounds like a paltry sum (225 pounds in 1868) is nearly lower middle class income today, and not penury.
  - zuminator 4y ago
    It's true that the US minimum wage is far less than what Ms. Laing received. Two things to keep in mind though. First, despite the Federal minimum, many states and localities have much higher minimums, for the reason that the Federal minimum is insufficient to live off of in many places. For example, San Francisco, has a minimum of $16.99/hr. or about £29,265 p.a., very close to Mrs. Laing's pension. Second, whether it's the Federal or San Francisco minimum, it's at best barely sufficient even for a single person. Mrs. Laing had a family of eight people. The US national poverty threshold for a family of 8 is $40K (£33,249) [0], so her by those standards her family would indeed be very poor. [0] https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines/prior-hhs-poverty-guidelines-federal-register-references/2021-poverty-guidelines https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/povert...
    - ztrww 4y ago
      Yearly salary for a skilled worker in the US was around $700/£140 in the 1860s was in England it was around £100 or even less. So in that context £225 is not that bad.
- tecleandor 4y ago
  Being the minimum wage 7.25 an hour, wouldn't be yearly around half of that number? (Foreigner here, I don't have the minimum wage in the US super clear)
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    You are right I was thinking household (2 adults working).
CaptArmchair 4y ago
Agreed. While that translates into 30k pounds today, one has to also factor in the cost of living in Bengal at the time. While she rented in a poor area, would 17 pounds have been on the high end or low end for the kind of living quarters it got her? What were the price levels in general for food, clothes and so on? You'd have to look at rent levels in that area at the time to make an accurate assertion. > Even with all this misfortune, all of them seem to have done well later. They clearly did. One unanswered question is what the intentions were behind her petition to take her children on the Bengal Military Orphan Society. Was there a real hard pressure to take such a drastic measure? Or was this a desperate plea in hopes of drawing attention and financial help from elsewhere e.g. erstwhile social circles she frequented? Ultimately, the article does mention that the petition was denied, yet doesn't answer how she made ends meet in the following three years before the family moved again.
t-3 4y ago
Monetary conversions across such a broad stretch of time are nearly useless. Food, clothing, housing, etc were all under vastly different price pressures, and many modern "essentials" didn't even exist (and vice-versa).

by sn41 4y ago

willcipriano 4y ago

That's slightly higher than minimum wage in the US.

sn41 4y ago
The minimum wage of about $7.25 per hour, 40 hrs per week, 52 weeks comes to $15,080 which is around 12,000 GBP. So the pension is 2.5 times the minimum wage level. Please note: I am not attacking the article or the poor lady - I am just pointing out that what sounds like a paltry sum (225 pounds in 1868) is nearly lower middle class income today, and not penury.
- zuminator 4y ago
  It's true that the US minimum wage is far less than what Ms. Laing received. Two things to keep in mind though. First, despite the Federal minimum, many states and localities have much higher minimums, for the reason that the Federal minimum is insufficient to live off of in many places. For example, San Francisco, has a minimum of $16.99/hr. or about £29,265 p.a., very close to Mrs. Laing's pension. Second, whether it's the Federal or San Francisco minimum, it's at best barely sufficient even for a single person. Mrs. Laing had a family of eight people. The US national poverty threshold for a family of 8 is $40K (£33,249) [0], so her by those standards her family would indeed be very poor. [0] https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines/prior-hhs-poverty-guidelines-federal-register-references/2021-poverty-guidelines https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/povert...
  - ztrww 4y ago
    Yearly salary for a skilled worker in the US was around $700/£140 in the 1860s was in England it was around £100 or even less. So in that context £225 is not that bad.
tecleandor 4y ago
Being the minimum wage 7.25 an hour, wouldn't be yearly around half of that number? (Foreigner here, I don't have the minimum wage in the US super clear)
- willcipriano 4y ago
  You are right I was thinking household (2 adults working).

CaptArmchair 4y ago

Agreed. While that translates into 30k pounds today, one has to also factor in the cost of living in Bengal at the time. While she rented in a poor area, would 17 pounds have been on the high end or low end for the kind of living quarters it got her? What were the price levels in general for food, clothes and so on? You'd have to look at rent levels in that area at the time to make an accurate assertion. > Even with all this misfortune, all of them seem to have done well later. They clearly did. One unanswered question is what the intentions were behind her petition to take her children on the Bengal Military Orphan Society. Was there a real hard pressure to take such a drastic measure? Or was this a desperate plea in hopes of drawing attention and financial help from elsewhere e.g. erstwhile social circles she frequented? Ultimately, the article does mention that the petition was denied, yet doesn't answer how she made ends meet in the following three years before the family moved again.

t-3 4y ago

Monetary conversions across such a broad stretch of time are nearly useless. Food, clothing, housing, etc were all under vastly different price pressures, and many modern "essentials" didn't even exist (and vice-versa).