5 ms·

Going to repost his from a couple of days ago: Back in the feudalism days the ruling classes typically took between a third and a half of what the serfs produc

by rcarr 3y ago

Going to repost his from a couple of days ago: Back in the feudalism days the ruling classes typically took between a third and a half of what the serfs produced[2] which is what is happening now as rents are taking over 30% of take home pay in many areas of the country. > This means that 37% of the average single person's salary now goes on rent, though this proportion is even higher in London: a staggering 52%.[3] Considering there’s all the other taxes like council tax, income tax, vat and whatever else, the average worker is most likely paying the same amount (or possibly more) to the ruling classes that they did in medieval times. It's not "almost" modern feudal like system. It is. No other way of looking at it. [2]https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/feudalism.html https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/feudalism.html [3]https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/single-person-salary-rent-percentage https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/single-person-salary-rent-p...

gruez 3y ago
>Back in the feudalism days the ruling classes typically took between a third and a half of what the serfs produced[2] which is what is happening now as rents are taking over 30% of take home pay in many areas of the country. Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. >Considering there’s all the other taxes like council tax, income tax, vat and whatever else, All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't. edit: ...that serfs didn't get
- rcarr 3y ago
  > Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. That's what the third to a half of what they produced paid for, the right to live and work on the lord's land. > All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't No, but what "welfare state" did exist, such as transport infrastructure, was paid for by the lord, rather than directly by the peasant.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >That's what the third to a half of what they produced paid for, the right to live and work on the lord's land. You realize that the "rent" you pay includes the cost of the land, as well as the actual building on top. My point is that comparing whatever serfs paid and got in return (ie. only access to the land) and what the typical renter today gets (ie. access to the land and a finished building) isn't comparable. >> All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't >No, but what "welfare state" did exist, such as transport infrastructure, was paid for by the lord, rather than directly by the peasant. whoops my bad, missed a "get" at the end of that. The complete sentence was supposed to be: >All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't get
    - nerdbert 3y ago
      If there was already a building there and nobody was using it, they could have it. Typically it didn't cost much to put up a basic house.
      - gruez 3y ago
        You don't see anything wrong with comparing: 1. serfs paying 30% (or whatever) of their income and getting a parcel of land and a mud hut that "didn't cost much to put up" 2. someone today paying 30% and getting an apartment unit that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and comes with electricity, plumbing and air conditioning and concluding that the plight of the latter is basically the plight of the former?
        rcarr 3y ago
        Yes, because the modern day worker would be able to afford the former without paying 30% of his income if there were laws that strongly discouraged using property as an investment vehicle e.g exponential property owner tax, 0% for first property owned, 1% of land value for second, 2% for third, 4% for fourth, 8% for fifth etc. The issue is that those with capital are basically using their capital to bully the rest of the population, who cannot continue to exist without shelter, into paying high prices, that wouldn't exist if such measures were taken to discourage property hoarding. Here's another way of looking at it. Imagine that medieval society had the same construction technology we have today. Everyone lives in modern homes, with solar panels providing electricity and their own septic tanks for waste, and their own water collection systems. Other than that, the social structure is the same. Is there much difference between that and what we have today? Or is one set of people in society essentially freeloading of the other?
- andrepd 3y ago
  >Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism What. What do you mean by "free housing"? The serfs paid a land lord a portion of their labour in exchange for housing on "their" land. How is that different from the arrangement under capitalism today?
  - gruez 3y ago
    Renting an apartment today provides you with access to the land, and an actual apartment. Serfs back in the day had to build the living space themselves.
- pydry 3y ago
  >Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. Yours is the same misunderstanding that leads people to mistakenly think $40k shipping container houses are an answer to the housing crisis. It was always about land - its intrinsic scarcity and who gets to hoard it. Probably 10% of my rent is actually paying for the building. Mayfair is hoarded by one man and his "right" to its rents stems entirely from violence - his ancestor helping William the Conqueror conquer England. In this sense feudalism was kept around the whole time - like herpes. Control and ownership of land dictates the flow of parasitically extracted wealth - it's much the same whether I'm paying 2900 per month to a landlord in Maida Vale who doesn't have to work thanks to me (but somehow still can't be bothered to call out a plumber) or if I'm paying 1/3 of my income as a peasant to my lord. >All of that funds social services Social services have been severely eroded in the UK while the % spent on rent and taxes has sharply increased. The NHS is a wreck compared to what it used to be in the early 2000s and the social housing list is DECADES long. These already eroded institutions are a hangover from the decades when unions has real power in the UK and in the next 10 years they will be eroded still further.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Yours is the same misunderstanding that leads people to think $40k shipping container houses are the answer to the housing crisis. It was always about land, all along. That might be the case, but the apples to oranges comparison by the parent poster is hardly convincing evidence. >Social services are being severely eroded in the UK while the % spent on rent and taxes has sharply increased. The NHS is a wreck compared to what it used to be in the early 2000s and the social housing list is DECADES long. That can't possibly be due to other factors, like the aftereffects of the covid-19 pandemic, or all the baby boomers retiring and requiring way more medical care? Not to mention that adjusting for inflation, population size and demographic structure, NHS spending is actually up since the early 2000s[1]. [1] https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-and-future-of-government-spending-on-the-nhs https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-...
    - pydry 3y ago
andrepd 3y ago
Thomas Pikkety's books (Capital in the 21st century, etc) are an excellent and comprehensive data-driven analysis that examines the state of inequality today, all over the world, compared to centuries of history. For those not in the mood to read a 700 page tome, listen to his lectures (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofjozfEr-U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofjozfEr-U, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i5x_MrTuYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i5x_MrTuYs). I promise it's worth it.
- bjelkeman-again 3y ago
  Thanks, that was really very interesting. A lot to unpack there.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by rcarr 3y ago

gruez 3y ago

>Back in the feudalism days the ruling classes typically took between a third and a half of what the serfs produced[2] which is what is happening now as rents are taking over 30% of take home pay in many areas of the country. Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. >Considering there’s all the other taxes like council tax, income tax, vat and whatever else, All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't. edit: ...that serfs didn't get

rcarr 3y ago
> Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. That's what the third to a half of what they produced paid for, the right to live and work on the lord's land. > All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't No, but what "welfare state" did exist, such as transport infrastructure, was paid for by the lord, rather than directly by the peasant.
- gruez 3y ago
  >That's what the third to a half of what they produced paid for, the right to live and work on the lord's land. You realize that the "rent" you pay includes the cost of the land, as well as the actual building on top. My point is that comparing whatever serfs paid and got in return (ie. only access to the land) and what the typical renter today gets (ie. access to the land and a finished building) isn't comparable. >> All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't >No, but what "welfare state" did exist, such as transport infrastructure, was paid for by the lord, rather than directly by the peasant. whoops my bad, missed a "get" at the end of that. The complete sentence was supposed to be: >All of that funds social services and the welfare state, something that serfs didn't get
  - nerdbert 3y ago
    If there was already a building there and nobody was using it, they could have it. Typically it didn't cost much to put up a basic house.
    - gruez 3y ago
      You don't see anything wrong with comparing: 1. serfs paying 30% (or whatever) of their income and getting a parcel of land and a mud hut that "didn't cost much to put up" 2. someone today paying 30% and getting an apartment unit that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and comes with electricity, plumbing and air conditioning and concluding that the plight of the latter is basically the plight of the former?
      - rcarr 3y ago
        Yes, because the modern day worker would be able to afford the former without paying 30% of his income if there were laws that strongly discouraged using property as an investment vehicle e.g exponential property owner tax, 0% for first property owned, 1% of land value for second, 2% for third, 4% for fourth, 8% for fifth etc. The issue is that those with capital are basically using their capital to bully the rest of the population, who cannot continue to exist without shelter, into paying high prices, that wouldn't exist if such measures were taken to discourage property hoarding. Here's another way of looking at it. Imagine that medieval society had the same construction technology we have today. Everyone lives in modern homes, with solar panels providing electricity and their own septic tanks for waste, and their own water collection systems. Other than that, the social structure is the same. Is there much difference between that and what we have today? Or is one set of people in society essentially freeloading of the other?
andrepd 3y ago
>Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism What. What do you mean by "free housing"? The serfs paid a land lord a portion of their labour in exchange for housing on "their" land. How is that different from the arrangement under capitalism today?
- gruez 3y ago
  Renting an apartment today provides you with access to the land, and an actual apartment. Serfs back in the day had to build the living space themselves.
pydry 3y ago
>Did the serfs get free housing under feudalism? Otherwise you can't really compare how much the serfs were taxed compared to how much people today spent on rent. Yours is the same misunderstanding that leads people to mistakenly think $40k shipping container houses are an answer to the housing crisis. It was always about land - its intrinsic scarcity and who gets to hoard it. Probably 10% of my rent is actually paying for the building. Mayfair is hoarded by one man and his "right" to its rents stems entirely from violence - his ancestor helping William the Conqueror conquer England. In this sense feudalism was kept around the whole time - like herpes. Control and ownership of land dictates the flow of parasitically extracted wealth - it's much the same whether I'm paying 2900 per month to a landlord in Maida Vale who doesn't have to work thanks to me (but somehow still can't be bothered to call out a plumber) or if I'm paying 1/3 of my income as a peasant to my lord. >All of that funds social services Social services have been severely eroded in the UK while the % spent on rent and taxes has sharply increased. The NHS is a wreck compared to what it used to be in the early 2000s and the social housing list is DECADES long. These already eroded institutions are a hangover from the decades when unions has real power in the UK and in the next 10 years they will be eroded still further.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Yours is the same misunderstanding that leads people to think $40k shipping container houses are the answer to the housing crisis. It was always about land, all along. That might be the case, but the apples to oranges comparison by the parent poster is hardly convincing evidence. >Social services are being severely eroded in the UK while the % spent on rent and taxes has sharply increased. The NHS is a wreck compared to what it used to be in the early 2000s and the social housing list is DECADES long. That can't possibly be due to other factors, like the aftereffects of the covid-19 pandemic, or all the baby boomers retiring and requiring way more medical care? Not to mention that adjusting for inflation, population size and demographic structure, NHS spending is actually up since the early 2000s[1]. [1] https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-and-future-of-government-spending-on-the-nhs https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-...
  - pydry 3y ago

andrepd 3y ago

Thomas Pikkety's books (Capital in the 21st century, etc) are an excellent and comprehensive data-driven analysis that examines the state of inequality today, all over the world, compared to centuries of history. For those not in the mood to read a 700 page tome, listen to his lectures (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofjozfEr-U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofjozfEr-U, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i5x_MrTuYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i5x_MrTuYs). I promise it's worth it.

bjelkeman-again 3y ago
Thanks, that was really very interesting. A lot to unpack there.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]