Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MOST people were NOT "middle class". Most people were "working class" back then. "Middle class" as it exists today was a FAR smaller part of the population back then. MOST people made their living with manual labor (ie such as being the "servants" your videos mention) - those were "working class". This was true way into the 20th century (and included my mom & her family). And since your video is about life in England, here's the story of how MOST people lived in England as late as the 1930's - and even into the 40's and beyond (as my mom did).
PS - The "Middle Class" as we know it today (as the prominant class that MOST people belong to) has only been around since the 1950's - when the post war economic boom brought a much higher standard of living to the majority of people for the first time - transforming us from a nation that was mostly agricultural (with mostly working class people) to one that was mostly urban (with mostly middle class people).
Sure. In Europe that was the way it was. Remember people came to America for the "American Dream" and they started coming a LOT SOONER than the 1950s. Maybe they were working class for a little while if they hadn't come over sooner on the Mayflower like my relatives, but with some sticktoitiveness it was a heck of a lot easier to increase your standard of living. Starting a business and being successful at it was MUCH easier back then. There was no silly licensing and permits and FDA. You could buy a house; start a business keep your money.
Go to any of the thirteen colonies today and see how people lived. Comparatively speaking they had better homes; better quality all around. Comfortable if not luxurious living was the norm. Private Property was respected. The people controlled the government-- not the other way around like it is today.
Education, even high school education was probably the equivalent of what some PhDs have today. It was thousands of times better. You had to know Greek, Latin and English just to get IN to Harvard.
There's so much misinformation in your post I barely know where to begin - so let just address a FEW of your bogus statements:
You said: "If they lived past the child hood diseases, they lived until their late 70's; 80's 90's or later and died healthy in their sleep!"
This is absolute bunk. First off you seem to think that it's no big deal that so many infants died when somehow I think folks at the time would feel a bit differently. How much would YOU like it if your kids had a 21% chance of dying in their first year if you we white and 38% chance if you were black?
GOOD TIMES eh?
Even if you lived past those you didn't have anywhere NEAR a life expectancy that would take you into your "late 70's; 80's 90's". In 1850 someone who was aged 20 (and had thus been bypassed by those childhood diseases you simply shrug off) could expect to live to the "ripe old age" of 60.
WHOOP WHOOP.
Regarding the REST of your nonsense - MOST people didn't attend "Dinner Parties" - the WEALTHY attended "Dinner Parties" just like they do today. Most people were farmers back then, working from dawn to dusk. They didn't have time for "Dinner Parties" - they were too busy just trying to survive. What planet are you from?
Same with your silly statements about the dresses. You think it was FUN to wear a corset all the time?
You think it was FUN to wear those long heavy dresses in the middle of summer?
There's a REASON people don't wear all that stuff anymore - it was UNCOMFORTABLE.
You think it was FUN to wash your clothes with a washboard? If that's the case there's NOTHING stopping you from giving away your washer and dryer and buying a wash board instead. They certainly are around or easy to make. Heck you can get one for as little as $14.98 on Amazon.
You can also choose to do without electricity if you want - no one is making you have a computer and internet access. If you think it was so great to live like that WHY ARE YOU NOT LIVING LIKE THAT?
Same with your dumb statements about how "cheap" everything was. Yeah, stuff was cheap - and WAGES were TINY.
As I said, if you think it was so great living like that - WHY ARE NOT LIVING LIKE THAT? There's nothing stopping you. There are people today who DO live like that - why are you not one of them if you think it was so great? Maybe because "talk is cheap".
Ken
PS - You need to re-read your own link.
The houses were not "AS LITTLE AS $5".
The BUILDING PLANS were "AS LITTLE AS $5".
OK. I'll give you I was wrong on the cost of houses but I won't give you anything else. I've done the research. You haven't.
I've also done the research on the "we are living longer healthier lives today" lie--- which is the longest running bunch of propaganda dreamed up to push drugs on people to control them and make money off of them going. In fact there is tons of evidence which I have read from medical journals back then to prove that the Polio vaccine was a hoax and did more to cause Polio than to prevent it.
I didn't say the clothes looked comfortable but the certainly were fancy and probably very expensive to make relatively speaking which is a sign that people's money had a lot more purchasing power than they do today. They could afford expensive clothes back then.
Most people weren't commercial farmers. There were plenty of tradesmen as well as professionals and the trades people did very well. You could start a business back then on a shoe string without all the government red tape and prosper a lot sooner than you can today. It was the American Dream. This country wouldn't have become "the best" in the world if "most" Americans were poor and downtrodden until the 1950s. GET REAL! Look at history. Read between the lines and don't believe all the bull we've been fed all designed to make us think we are lucky to have the government tyranny and control and maybe a house and some modern appliances that the government and corporations STILL make us pay and pay and pay to run.
My relatives came over in the 1600s and were trades people sea captains and white collar professionals and did very for themselves and they lived very long lives---even those who lived in colonial days.
Today most people, can't even afford pure food. They settle for the chemicals, irradiation, GMO laden food sold in your typical grocery store. What is so great about that?
What would be so HORRIBLE about recouping some of the higher standard of living enjoyed back then today by simply making sure our government officials are HONEST like Ron Paul and by getting rid of thefascist/ government control and our CENTRAL BANK like president Jackson did that ushered in the golden age our country enjoyed for 80 or so years?
If you are such a smarty pants, show me three links from objective sources that indicate ANYTHING good happened to American's standard of living after the Federal Reserve was created. You won't be able to find ANYTHING that is real and verifiable. Needless to say, it can't be anything from the banking industry.
Also please explain how the 1950s were so much better than the 1890s other than modern appliances, back then the dollar purchased a lot less than it did in the 1890s ALL BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.
I bet you didn't know that it was the Banksters that dreamed up the Women's movement (and the brainwashing that women were fed that they weren't "complete" unless they had a family AND a career) so they'd have two incomes to steal rather than just one per family.
Gary Johnson is for the 100% equally. Part of his appeal is he can say he is more fiscally conservative than Mitt Romney & more socially liberal than Barack Obama. He is fair, honest, kind, smart. Although he is wealthy, he lives like an average person, in a house he built himself. He will talk to anyone, and he has no hate. He doesn't flip-flop & states his issues positions clearly, explaining the benefits.
Many rich people feel superior & are haters or indifferent towards those who have lower incomes or those who do not conform to the majority. Republicans talk about money & business. Democrats are not really *that* much different IMO. Most in both parties voted against the Constitution on many bills, and without the Constitution being used, we are not guaranteed any rights.
Gary Johnson would do the best to get our Constitutional rights back. He is opposed to the Patriot Act that allows unlimited warrantless spying on all Americans. He is against the NDAA that says any American can be put in prison for up to 100 years, without ever being charged with anything.
Gary Johnson wants to re-legalize cannabis ("marijuana") & says there are 50 million admitted users in USA. There are 126 medical conditions where it sometimes works better than any pills & may eliminate the need for some operations. Says it would be 90% cheaper under regulated legalization with a 100% tax (est. $19/oz). Gary used it to manage pain for 3 years after falling 50 feet with broken bones: back, rib & knee. Recent anecdotes say people are using Cannabis Oil to cure cancer & other painful & fatal illnesses. Was is pharmacies until 1937 when cancer was rare. Now we have 30% dying from cancer.
Yes but Ron Paul would do all of that and MORE! Vote for Ron Paul! We may even be pleasantly surprised that he is indeed the Republican Nominee. All the fraud that went on during the primaries is being reviewed and hopefully ironed out before the RNC in Tampa--- and it probably would have turned out, if there hadn't been the fraudulent tactics used by the Romneyites that Ron Paul would have not only won the delegates in at least as many states as Romney but he would have won the popular vote too.
So minorities don't enjoy freedom? Interesting..and matter of fact I do believe we have several folks that voted Obama in 2008 that wanted Ron Paul this year.
minorities dont want to live in a world where they can be discriminated against, which would be the case under ron paul. I don't see how much freedom we would have under a libertarian environment.
If Paul has dropped to sixth place and Romney is so popular, why was his trip to Poland such a disaster with throngs of Ron Paul supporters there to greet him rather than any of his own?
First off, not everyone here is a Libertarian. Which has nothing to do with this topic anyway.
He keeps keeps repeating that along with some bizarre off topic connection to Darwinism. (I think he just likes the word maybe.)
Secondly minorities don't all vote democrat.
If he is referencing Paul, both he and his son are Republicans, not Libertarians.
So not much makes sense about what was posted.
i keep calling in darwinism because thats what libertarianism is. Survival of the fittest, every man for himself, kill or be killed economics. Ron Paul is a libertarian who is running as a republican because he couldn't run under the libertarian party because he knew he wouldn't get anywhere.
minorities dont want to live in a world where they can be discriminated against, which would be the case under ron paul. I don't see how much freedom we would have under a libertarian environment.
That is such a tired old lame argument that has been disproven time and time again. Everyone knows, including a lot of minorities that support Ron Paul that he would not discriminate against minorities. His whole platform and belief system is based on equal individual rights across the board for everyone. Period.
OK. I'll give you I was wrong on the cost of houses but I won't give you anything else. I've done the research. You haven't.
I've also done the research on the "we are living longer healthier lives today" lie--- which is the longest running bunch of propaganda dreamed up to push drugs on people to control them and make money off of them going. In fact there is tons of evidence which I have read from medical journals back then to prove that the Polio vaccine was a hoax and did more to cause Polio than to prevent it.
I didn't say the clothes looked comfortable but the certainly were fancy and probably very expensive to make relatively speaking which is a sign that people's money had a lot more purchasing power than they do today. They could afford expensive clothes back then.
Most people weren't commercial farmers. There were plenty of tradesmen as well as professionals and the trades people did very well. You could start a business back then on a shoe string without all the government red tape and prosper a lot sooner than you can today. It was the American Dream. This country wouldn't have become "the best" in the world if "most" Americans were poor and downtrodden until the 1950s. GET REAL! Look at history. Read between the lines and don't believe all the bull we've been fed all designed to make us think we are lucky to have the government tyranny and control and maybe a house and some modern appliances that the government and corporations STILL make us pay and pay and pay to run.
My relatives came over in the 1600s and were trades people sea captains and white collar professionals and did very for themselves and they lived very long lives---even those who lived in colonial days.
Today most people, can't even afford pure food. They settle for the chemicals, irradiation, GMO laden food sold in your typical grocery store. What is so great about that?
What would be so HORRIBLE about recouping some of the higher standard of living enjoyed back then today by simply making sure our government officials are HONEST like Ron Paul and by getting rid of thefascist/ government control and our CENTRAL BANK like president Jackson did that ushered in the golden age our country enjoyed for 80 or so years?
If you are such a smarty pants, show me three links from objective sources that indicate ANYTHING good happened to American's standard of living after the Federal Reserve was created. You won't be able to find ANYTHING that is real and verifiable. Needless to say, it can't be anything from the banking industry.
Also please explain how the 1950s were so much better than the 1890s other than modern appliances, back then the dollar purchased a lot less than it did in the 1890s ALL BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.
I bet you didn't know that it was the Banksters that dreamed up the Women's movement (and the brainwashing that women were fed that they weren't "complete" unless they had a family AND a career) so they'd have two incomes to steal rather than just one per family.
As an african american, i think my family's past history would qualify as something better happening after the establishment of the federal reserve bank.
minorities dont want to live in a world where they can be discriminated against, which would be the case under ron paul. I don't see how much freedom we would have under a libertarian environment.
As much as you deserve and are willing to work for.
Patriots, that have a national sense of identity as to what America used to stand for, liberty.
Exactly. It isn't just the Libertarians is is MOST OF AMERICA that wants to be able to live FREE again. It includes Libertarians; Independents; the Constitution party; disillusioned Republicans and Democrats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
