Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

notesonliberty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#71

Post by misja »

Nice article but I don't think this part of the conclusion is correct:

'Wealth, in Piketty’s view, perpetuates itself, and effortlessly earns its return (never mind the work, risk and selection issues involved). By continually paying the interest on its debt, the governments of Austen’s Britain financed the leisurly lifestyles of the rich, just as the “natural” return of the modern-day rich contribute and maintain today’s inequality.'

This completely disregards inflation. E.g., if government bonds guarantee a 3% payout but inflation is at 3.5%, your wealth is not perpetuating but leaking away.

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#72

Post by ljf »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #56
762236 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That number sounds like it covers salaries for the help.

Live-in housekeeping is around £50k a year for a couple - not bad for living rent-free on a nice estate - although I used to know someone who provided house-keeping for much less in return for not having to pay for rent and food. So cheaper options are possible. Gardening is maybe £25-30k/yr, unless the estate is absolutely huge. Heating will cost a lot in the UK. So will maintenance, especially if there's significan…

A friend of mine (who lives in a house of a much smaller scale) spends £2000 a year on gravel alone for his drive. Then he either needs to spend weeks spreading or pay someone to to do the same. Once you have a lot of something, things sure get expensive.

On a similar note - say he wanted to replace his doors Now he won't just want to use form £100 from the hardware shop, so realistically will be looking at £600+ for nice handmade bespoke internal doors. And then a future £100 for the door furniture, maybe £100 to get each painted and prepared and maybe £100 for the fitting. Before you know it looking at £1000ish a door. He had over 25 doors, and this was 'only' a 6 bed house... yes you aren't replacing these every year, but just an example of one of the costs.

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#73

Post by puranjay »

steve19 wrote: post #42
adamson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was upkeep that expensive? Would you be maintaining the entire estate as a perfectly manicured garden?

What would be the point in buying one and letting the gardens go, not maintaining a stable and all your neighbors laughing behind your back.

"He doesn't have even a single thoroughbred stallion...pffft"

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#74

Post by orkon »

misja wrote: post #71

Nice article but I don't think this part of the conclusion is correct: 'Wealth, in Piketty’s view, perpetuates itself, and effortlessly earns its return (never mind the work, risk and selection issues involved). By continually paying the interest on its debt, the governments of Austen’s Britain financed the leisurly lifestyles of the rich, just as the “natural” return of the modern-day rich contribute and maintain to…

I think I have read somewhere that inflation in the end of the 17th - first half of 18th century was almost zero or there was even a deflation. I may be wrong. Maybe someone has a good source?

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#75

Post by ghaff »

pvg wrote: post #15

One striking thing about Mr. Darcy's income is you could still survive on it (not inflation-adjusted) in a developed country today. It's right around the individual poverty line. It's also close the median household income worldwide.

Assuming, at a minimum, health care and other social social safety net services. But, yes, Mr. Darcy was very wealthy by the standards of the time and would be today. (Although, as others have pointed out, comparing wealth across such a long time period is difficult in many ways.)

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#76

Post by ghaff »

WalterBright wrote: post #69
devchix wrote: post #3

Consols schmonsols! The modern prospector such as Mrs. Bennet would want to know how much is that in today's money. Using the Bank of England's trusty inflation calculator and plugging in 1813 (the year Pride and Prejudice was published), Darcy's worth £681K a year and his friend half that. In the Valley or London, what's that, a director level at a FAANG, and a tech lead? Using the annual yield to derive asset, the…

I think George Washington was the richest man in America in his time. I toured his Mount Vernon estate. I wouldn't want to live like that.

I'm not sure any sensible person would.

If only because you'd be rolling a huge pair of dice with respect to health care, dental care, etc. Your children have decent odds of dying young. Women in childbirth. Infections. No modern dental care etc.

Sure, some made it to old age without serious problems. (And people die young today in spite of modern medicine.) But I'll take the bet on today's medicine.

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#77

Post by dtjohnnyb »

orkon wrote: post #74
misja wrote: post #71

Nice article but I don't think this part of the conclusion is correct: 'Wealth, in Piketty’s view, perpetuates itself, and effortlessly earns its return (never mind the work, risk and selection issues involved). By continually paying the interest on its debt, the governments of Austen’s Britain financed the leisurly lifestyles of the rich, just as the “natural” return of the modern-day rich contribute and maintain to…

I think I have read somewhere that inflation in the end of the 17th - first half of 18th century was almost zero or there was even a deflation. I may be wrong. Maybe someone has a good source?

The book mentioned in the article, Capital in the 21st Century, shows this in really interesting detail. I can't remember the details myself, but the idea we have of inflation being normal is actually highly abnormal in the history of humanity. Can't recommend the book enough, really interesting to see how unique the last 100 years of high growth is compared to history due to the world wars and how we may be returning to "normal" levels of inequality.

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#78

Post by ghaff »

azernik wrote: post #36
thechao wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your original estimate is odd. The article claims that 40£ was several years of income for a laborer. If we assume 20£/year is equivalent to a day laborer, that’s around 20k$/year (in Texas, where I live, that’s a bit on the low side). That gives Darcy’s income at around 10mm£/year, in modern terms. I mean, setting aside the ridiculousness of trying to compare economies separated by 200 years.

You're assuming that a day laborer in the UK had income and standard of living similar to a lower-income Texan in 2019. It was closer to that of a lower-income Haitian in 2019. EDIT: I was a bit low - BoE's inflation calculator puts a £20 income in 1813 at £1,362.94 in 2018, or about the average income of a Haitian today. So let's say, a lower-income Afghan?

I'm not sure how useful the BoE calculator is for that. It's probably more useful to just look at standard of living qualitatively.

Given that a Victorian era lower-class Londoner probably looks more like a lower-class Haitian than a Texan.

I'm less sure how to compare from Austen's era, especially outside of a major city. But things like getting any medical care at all or getting enough food to eat suggests ways that poor people of that era would be disadvantaged compared to most poor people of a developed county today.

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#79

Post by danans »

conjectures wrote: post #64
devchix wrote: post #3

Consols schmonsols! The modern prospector such as Mrs. Bennet would want to know how much is that in today's money. Using the Bank of England's trusty inflation calculator and plugging in 1813 (the year Pride and Prejudice was published), Darcy's worth £681K a year and his friend half that. In the Valley or London, what's that, a director level at a FAANG, and a tech lead? Using the annual yield to derive asset, the…

Inflation figures over 200 years are pretty dodgy. How much was a dose of penicillin, an iphone or a flight to New York in 1819? There's a very real sense in which very average Westerners now are far wealthier than Darcy. Conversely Darcy would have had far more power than the someone with net worth £16.8-28m would today. He'd probably have had a large say in who the local MP was, the local priest. Probably could tur…

Your examples have an interesting pattern.

> How much was a dose of penicillin, an iphone or a flight to New York in 1819? There's a very real sense in which very average Westerners now are far wealthier than Darcy.

One's wealthiness is always relative to others. The items listed here are goods that are broadly available today across wealth bands, and are therefore not markers of wealthiness.

> Conversely Darcy would have had far more power than the someone with net worth £16.8-28m would today. He'd probably have had a large say in who the local MP was, the local priest. Probably could turf a large chunk of the local population out of jobs and homes. Likely had a small army of servants.

Power is a great (the ultimate ?) example of a resource whose access and distribution can be compared over time.

Power over others has never been quantified like monetary wealth has, yet it is intrinsic to humans given we are a highly social species. For people like Darcy, such power over others was a hereditary birthright. You couldn't buy a share of that power as an investment. Therefore, there was no market that could estimate the monetary value of that power.

Re: Mr. Darcy’s Ten Thousand a Year

#80

Post by WalterBright »

ghaff wrote: post #76
WalterBright wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think George Washington was the richest man in America in his time. I toured his Mount Vernon estate. I wouldn't want to live like that.

I'm not sure any sensible person would. If only because you'd be rolling a huge pair of dice with respect to health care, dental care, etc. Your children have decent odds of dying young. Women in childbirth. Infections. No modern dental care etc. Sure, some made it to old age without serious problems. (And people die young today in spite of modern medicine.) But I'll take the bet on today's medicine.

It's not just that. Most everything you did was physical. No indoor plumbing. No ice cream. No fresh vegetables in winter. Itchy clothes. Hardly any books. Travel was difficult, slow, and quite uncomfortable. Lousy shoes. No A/C. Roasting or freezing indoors in winter. Little information about what was happening more than a day's walk away. A rotting mouth. No movies.
Post reply on HN