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.
It would be interesting to compare the cost of different things in 1967 readjusted to 2014 money to see what's gone up and what's gone down. My Dad has said once that he paid 17 shillings to see the Rolling Stones play - I guess that's about £15 in today's money maybe? Tickets to see them at Hyde Park last year cost between £95 and £299, and I bet it was nowhere near as exciting as seeing them at their peak. On the other hand, I remember watching an old episode of Till Death Us Do Part (in colour, so perhaps more like early 70s) where Alf's on the phone to Australia for about two minutes and that supposedly cost him £4.
There are people round here only ten years older than me who remember outside toilets and a tin bath in front of the fire. Even here in the wealthy south east there was slum clearance as late as the 1980s. Not everyone was poor, but the transformation in the last 50 years has been quite remarkable, and sometimes we forget how lucky we are today.
We had an outside toilet and I was born in 1968! Yes we were very poor but we didn't appreciate it at the time because everyone lived the same way. I was born and bred in Liverpool which like many cities has undergone such an astonishing regeneration in the last 30 years that when I go back now I hardly recognise the place. I admit Liverpool was pretty slummy when I was growing up, but looks fantastic now.
The impoverishment was perceived on two fronts. First was the material gap between Britain and the United States (as well as Canada and Australia). The lifestyle of the average Briton was much simpler than the average American. Houses were smaller, fewer people had cars and electronics.
But Britain was still a relatively "wealthy" country compared to the rest of the world. The big part of the perception of impoverishment was when comparing the country to its pre-WWII days. While the average Briton in the 1960s was better off compared to the average Briton before WWII, there was a real sense of the decline in the country's overall wealth. The upper classes had been crippled by taxation and death duties, big houses were being demolished or converted into institutional uses, the Empire was largely gone and the City wasn't the financial center it had been before the war, industry and shipping was beginning a noticeable decline. Britain had spent most of the accumulated wealth from the great Victorian days on WWI and WWII and reconstructing Britain after the war also cost a fair penny. All the great economic institutions that Britain had been proud of before the war seemed to be on its last knees. The pound was no longer the international currency. The withdrawal from Empire reduced the country's international importance. Before WWII Britain owned over half the global merchant marines but that rapidly changed after the war. The perception of the decline in the wealth and influence of a once great and mighty country was very real.
But as I mentioned, the standard of living for the average Briton was higher than his comparable before the war.
My own experiences with Britain dates back to the 1960s and I've made repeat visits since then. I'd say that in the 1960s Britain seemed to be about 15 years behind the US from a standard of living perspective (quite a few Americans didn't have indoor toilets before WWII either). By the late 1980s I'd say 8-10 years behind the US. Today I don't see a noticeable difference for what's commonly found in the US is now also commonly found in the UK. The difference that persists is that the average house is still generally smaller and people still have slightly fewer material goods. Despite the current economic crisis Britain today does appear far richer, prosperous and smarter than in the 1960s, primarily because of the great 1980s and 1990s boom in the South. But the northern cities are still lagging behind.
It would be interesting to compare the cost of different things in 1967 readjusted to 2014 money to see what's gone up and what's gone down. My Dad has said once that he paid 17 shillings to see the Rolling Stones play - I guess that's about £15 in today's money maybe? Tickets to see them at Hyde Park last year cost between £95 and £299, and I bet it was nowhere near as exciting as seeing them at their peak. On the other hand, I remember watching an old episode of Till Death Us Do Part (in colour, so perhaps more like early 70s) where Alf's on the phone to Australia for about two minutes and that supposedly cost him £4.
I don't think it matters how much things "cost"; what matters is the overall quality of life for people now compared to then. What is important is access to healthcare, education, technology, knowledge, human rights, opportunity, travel etc.
I'm not sure about 1967, but Britain was crippled by economic and political turmoil throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s - power cuts were commonplace, Britain's post-industrial cities were crumbling, strikes were routine, even London was suffering from a massive population exodus and lack of investment. It was frequently dubbed the 'sick man' of Europe. It was never a poor country, at least, in relation to the vast majority of the world, but it was definitely in very bad shape economically.
1967 saw another crisis in the British economy and Harold Wilson announced, in November 1967, that the pound had been devalued by just over 14%, resulting in an exchange rate of $2.40. This was the famous "pound in your pocket" devaluation, where Wilson tried to reassure the country by pointing out that the devaluation would not affect the value of money within Britain.
It should however be noted that the £1 million mentioned by the OP equated to $2.4 million (USD) which I am quite sure was a good deal of money in the US in 1967.
But as I mentioned, the standard of living for the average Briton was higher than his comparable before the war.
You know I'm curious how the Exchequer promoted taxation policy under post-war circumstances. Everyone paying their 'fair' share or were taxes and wages so low that nobody had to pay any attention on the former score? It seems to me Britain no doubt couldn't 'tax' themselves out of their problems.
Britain had rationing that began in WW2 and did not end till the 1950's. London was still cleaning up bomb damage until the 1960's.
When I lived in Singapore in the 60's I knew several British military families. Many of them grew up in families that never owned a car nor had indoor plumbing . When they came out to Singapore they were astonished that on an enlisted persons pay they could afford a car, a maid and a gardener.
There were a lot if unhappy people in in 1971 when Britain pulled their forces out of Singapore due to economic issues at home.
Depends. compared to the world, no. But compared to other Western countries, yes, since the UK economy did poor compared to West Germany and the USA. If anything Germany and France got it far worse than the UK did in the war, but they did better after the war.
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.
