|
| ▲ | rayiner 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Victorian England was the richest country in the world by GDP per capita. But the world was just very poor before the industrial revolution: a per-capita GDP around $900. By 1800 England was more than double that. Today almost every country is richer than England was in 1800: https://www.broadstreet.blog/p/how-the-world-became-rich-par... |
| |
|
| ▲ | strken 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would be interested in hearing an actual historian's opinion on whether conditions were better or worse in England at the height of the British Empire, compared to continental Europe. I got the impression from Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London that English workhouses near the end of their life were basically the predecessor of the modern homeless shelter, where visitors would get a single night of accommodation by law. The conditions a century earlier seem to have been truly hellish and tantamount to slavery. I have no idea whether either was better or worse than the rest of the world at the time. |
|
| ▲ | dijit 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yep. Britain controlled the largest empire in history, yet most of its own population lived in dire poverty. I don’t believe this was accidental. Imperial profits flowed almost entirely to a small propertied class (the landed gentry). The working classes.. who provided the soldiers, sailors, and labour.. saw virtually none of it whilst living in squalor. Before 1918, most British men couldn’t vote at all; franchise was tied to property ownership. When we discuss ‘the British Empire,’ we’re largely describing the actions and enrichment of perhaps 3-5% of the British population. Most Britons today can trace their ancestry back through generations of poverty and disenfranchisement, not imperial beneficiaries. It’s an important distinction that’s often lost in broader discussions of imperial responsibility, as if those who are generationally impoverished should share guilt. |
| |
| ▲ | Steven_Vellon 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Dire poverty by modern standards, sure. But the 19th century saw a spectacular rise in living standards even for average Britons. The literacy rate in Britain was ~60% for men and 40% for women in 1800, by the end of the century it was near universal for both genders. Life expectancy at birth rose from ~40 to 50. Median wages rose, too, climbing ~50% from 1800 to 1850 (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Real-wages-during-the-pe...). It is simultaneously true that the average Briton (arguably wealthy Britons, too) in 1900 lived in abject poverty compared to 2025, and the 19th century saw one of the fastest rises in living standards in Britain even among average Britons. | | |
| ▲ | asdff an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Was that due to the british empire, or was that broadly happening across the western world during that same time period? | | |
| ▲ | Steven_Vellon 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure what you mean by that? Imperialism was broadly happening across the western world during that time period. Industrialization, too, but that was tightly intertwined with imperialism as countries set up colonies to extract resources to fuel their industrial expansion. |
| |
| ▲ | saalweachter 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wasn't the literacy rate in New England substantially higher than the literacy rate in Old England, both in 1800 and in the years prior to its declaration of independence? | | |
| ▲ | Steven_Vellon 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | New England had a male literacy rate of around 70% compared to Britain's 60% in 1800. But New England was one of the most literate regions in America around the time of the founding, including the other American regions into the literacy rate would bring the literacy rate down (even more so when if one includes the enslaved population). Comparing the literacy rate one specific region of one country, to the national average of another country is comparing apples to oranges. But the important thing is, the 1900 Britain's male literacy rate was 97%. Illiteracy went from something that was fairly common to exceptionally rare. |
| |
| ▲ | dijit 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’ve rather missed my point. I’m not saying nothing improved. I’m saying the imperial profits didn’t go to the people doing the dying for empire. 50% wage growth over fifty years whilst Britain’s running the largest empire in history? Compare that to the United States over the same period. The US saw 60% real wage growth from 1860-1890 with no empire whatsoever. If imperial profits were trickling down, you’d expect Britain to outpace non-imperial industrialising nations. It didn’t, if anything it was worse. The literacy and life expectancy gains you’re citing came from industrialisation and public health reforms, not imperial dividends. Meanwhile the landed gentry who actually controlled the imperial trade were getting obscenely wealthy. Life expectancy of 50 in 1900 still meant working-class Londoners in overcrowded tenements with open sewers, whilst their supposed countrymen lived in townhouses with servants. The Victorian poor saw industrial revolution gains, not imperial ones. | | |
| ▲ | dijit 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve done more digging now because even though its apples to oranges, the UK itself is now no longer an empire, and we have a 50 year window on when it wasn’t… So just for additional context on how wage growth compares across different periods (I’ve average across decades): Victorian Britain (with empire): - 50% real wage growth over 50 years (1800-1850) Modern Britain (post-empire): - 1970s-1980s: 2.9% annual real wage growth - 1990s: 1.5% annual growth - 2000s: 1.2% annual growth - 2010s-2020s: essentially zero growth Real wages grew by roughly 33% per decade from 1970 to 2007, then completely stagnated. By 2020, median disposable income was only 1% higher than in 2007; less than 1% growth over 13 years. The really depressing bit? Workers actually did far better in the post-imperial period (1970-2005) than they ever did during the height of empire. Which tells you everything you need to know about who was actually pocketing the imperial profits. And the post-2008 wage stagnation shows the same pattern's still alive and well, just without colonies to extract from. Capital finds new ways to capture the gains; financialisation, asset inflation, whatever: whilst labour still gets the scraps. Different methods, same fucking result. The Victorian poor weren't sharing in empire's spoils, and modern workers aren't sharing in productivity gains either. I guess mechanisms change, but the outcome doesn't. | | |
| ▲ | kiba an hour ago | parent [-] | | Asset inflation going into non-productive assets like land or monopoly privileges. Tech monopolies are famous example of this, which is why they're large percentage of the SP500. Most loans are for land, which mean your banking system isn't directing loans toward productive assets which increase economic activity. So, no, the mechanism didn't change FMPOV. |
| |
| ▲ | triceratops an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The US saw 60% real wage growth from 1860-1890 with no empire whatsoever I understand what you mean. But also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny You are right that common people in Britain didn't get as much out of Pax Brittanica as America's did during its own period of expansion. | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re absolutely correct. The UK built an empire because it industrialized early and had the money and technology to do so. But the empire isn’t what made it rich in the first place. |
|
| |
| ▲ | arthurcolle 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sounds pretty much like today | |
| ▲ | PlatoIsADisease 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >You’re hitting a crucial paradox AI? Just curious | | |
| ▲ | dijit an hour ago | parent [-] | | No, just trying to open friendly. I sweated over the opening for 5 minutes because I didn’t want to go in really hard with “don’t you know most brits had it bad ackshulee!”- because I’m one of those generationally poverty-stricken brits and it hits a bit too close to home to sound neutral. Removed it; I’m getting flagged regardless, I might as well own it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | moomoo11 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's because any "Empire" is the extension of the ruler's ego. They weren't being imperial for their people. It was so they could brag to other royals and rulers that their kingdom was bigger. The people were resources and toys for the rulers' entertainment. |
| |
| ▲ | PlatoIsADisease an hour ago | parent [-] | | That isnt how international relations works. Lesson based on contemporary IR Systems Realism: >Great powers are forced to manage the international system, or become a client of a great power. There are benefits to being a great power. >When 1 great power builds weapons, everyone else is forced to too. This is called the Arms Race. >Colonialism is one example of the Arms Race. If you didn't join the party, you were going to lose. >Great powers put international politics above domestic politics. Its why we see the US do things like spend heavily on the military and get involved in unpopular wars. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | gerdesj 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'd give the dramas a miss mate and stick to boring old history or efforts to try and describe what happened in the past, with evidence. This article is in the second camp. The article is describing an "early" veteran's struggle to deal with being disabled in a war and how society treats them. London isn't mentioned at all. |
|
| ▲ | tempest_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean you can only judge squalor if you also talk about how other people in capitals that were not London lived. Relative squalor might have been nice comparatively, or not, I have no idea. Plenty of poor people in the US yet people still go there. |
|
| ▲ | FridayoLeary 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've never heard anyone suggest that Britain should have focused on improving conditions at home before engaging in empire building. I always assumed the two were not mutually dependent. The expenses in running an empire probably paid for itself and no doubt returned a lot on the initial investment (after all the whole point of having an empire is to secure better trading). Meanwhile the conditions in the cities were a separate problem, and one which was hard to fix quickly given the population explosion and the Industrial Revolution. All of which to say, is while you raise an excellent point all the evidence i've seen suggests the two are entirely unrelated projects. If anything increasing globalisation in the long term increased prosperity for everyone involved (just not necessarily by equal amounts) and vastly improved conditions. If anyone has a counterpoint, by which i mean historical complaints or serious academic analysis, i'm happy to hear. None of this is a moral judgement on the relative evils and merits of empires and Victorian England, which is not the topic, just my opinion of why from a practical standpoint one has very little to do with the other. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s not at all clear the costs of running the empire were outweighed by the benefits: https://iea.org.uk/media/empire-and-slavery-did-not-make-bri... “The book highlights that most of Britain’s economic growth in the imperial period did not come from its colonies. Trade only accounted for about a quarter of economic output, and most of that trade was with Western Europe and North America — not the Empire. For that reason alone, the Empire cannot have been the decisive factor explaining domestic investment and later wealth.” |
|
|
| ▲ | bsder 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And the conditions for their vaunted military (both army and navy) was as bad or worse. A trip to the Fusilier Museum in the Tower of London really drove that home. Being a soldier absolutely sucked until pretty much the 20th century. |
| |
| ▲ | gerdesj 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You might like to note that Florence Nightingale largely invented the concept of effective treatment of broken soldiers and she was from these parts. You might like to ask this chap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston about being burned on a ship as a soldier many 1000 miles away from home. The thing about history is that it is remote until it is personal. My dad was a soldier (so was mum but she left to marry dad, because that was an "option" in the '60s). We lived in West Germany quite a lot and the LSLs (Landing Ship Logistic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Sir_Galahad_(1966) were an option for travel to and fro' the UK. Me and my brother were teenagers at the time. The cooks on the LSLs were Chinese (Honkers - Hong Kong) and inveterate gamblers. I don't recall all the crew being Chinese as the wiki article says. After dinner, "pud" (sweet/pudding) was often apple fritters with syrup. Me and my brother had quite an appetite and my mum told me later that the cooks would bet on how many bowls of apple fritters we would demolish. Another thing I remember from the LSLs is that the tables had a ring around the edge about 1" high and very sticky table mats. They were flat bottomed, being designed to run up a beach, which had no chance because they were pretty old by the '80s. In any sort of a sea they pitched and yawed and made you wish you were a better person! Despite all that, one made it to the Falklands and died horribly along with a fair few soldiers. Galahad was actually one of the later ones. Lancelot was an old one and would never have managed the journey. |
|
