Medieval Britons were richer than modern poor people, study finds

[CHIMO]

People living in medieval England were more prosperous than modern day residents of the world's poorest nations, a study into Britain's economic history has found.

The research by economists at the University of Warwick found that per capita income in England during the middle ages was more than double that required for the "bare bones subsistence" of people living in many of today's poorest countries.

The paper, British Economic Growth 1270-1870, is published by the university's Centre on Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy, and estimates that per capita income in England in the late middle ages was about $1,000 or £634 a year when compared with currency values in 1990.

According to the World Bank, countries which had a per capita income of less than $1,000 last year included Ghana ($700), Cambodia ($650), Tanzania ($500), Ethiopia ($300) and Burundi ($150), while in India – one of the BRIC emerging economies – the gross income per capita stands only just above medieval levels at $1,180.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/dec/06/medieval-britons-richer-than-modern-poor

[pnwmom]

1. I can believe that. Not all modern poor people, but those living

in the poorest nations. People with no running water, sewage treatment, etc., and poor access to food and medical care.

[applegrove]

3. Yes. And I am hopeful to see a middle class emerging from nations. We can only hope.

[Elmore Furth]

2. There's more to an economy than just crops, livestock and trade.

Undoubtedly the medieval people has some synergy with their environment that gave them significant advantages.

"Our work sheds new light on England's economic past, revealing that per capita incomes in medieval England were substantially higher than the "bare bones subsistence" levels experienced by people living in poor countries in our modern world. The majority of the British population in medieval times could afford to consume what we call a "respectability basket" of consumer goods that allowed for occasional luxuries. By the late Middle Ages, the English people were in a position to afford a varied diet including meat, dairy produce and ale, as well as the less highly processed grain products that comprised the bulk of the "bare bones subsistence" diet."

Medieval England Twice as Well Off as Today’s Poorest Nations

[truedelphi]

4. remember too, the air that most people were breathing was

Pure unadulterated air!

No need for expensive asthma inhalers. Or spending huge sums on Insurance plans to help treat modern diseases like cancer and heart attacks.

If one's home was near a creek or lake or pond, the water you drank was decent too.

[fasttense]

5. I wouldn't be so quick to assume their air was not polluted.

In the rural areas, you might have found an unpolluted environment but by 1870, most of Europe was burning coal and it polluted so badly that their were weeks you could not see the sun through the black smog.

Even in rural areas, if they had not converted to closed stoves, the smoke from the fireplace or hearth could be as bad on your lungs as a pack a day habit.

[truedelphi]

6. 1870 was not a medieval time period.

It is quite amazing about how lil people now know about anything!

Early days of medieval time period, most people lived in very rural areas, if not outright wilderness regions.

[upi402]

7. German-English time period figured it ended in 1453

Early Middle Ages 476 to 1000
High Middle Ages 1000 to 1300
Late Middle Ages 1300 to 1453

I used to love history but forget so much.
I think the OP makes a good point, and the upheaval is not surprising.

[truedelphi]

8. I loved the OP and also

I am grateful for your delineating the particular epochs.

I am adding them to this post, and then throwing it into my journal.
Medieval time periods (Courtesy of DU'er upi402 )


Early Middle Ages 476 to 1000
High Middle Ages 1000 to 1300
Late Middle Ages 1300 to 1453

[fasttense]

9. I assumed that was the time period the paper was covering.

"The paper, British Economic Growth 1270-1870, is published by the university's Centre on Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy."

[ncguy]

10. Actually

women who cook with wood tend to have very high rates of lung prolbems. It may not have been diagnosed as lung cancer at the time, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't lung cancer.

[NickB79]

12. Since they were burning copious amounts of wood, their air was far from unadulterated

Even today, people in less developed nations that burn wood for cooking and heat have high rates of respiratory diseases:

http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/13/smoke-from-cooking-and-heating-kills-54000-afghans-a-year.html

"But aside from the threat of burns, the main problem posed by heating and cooking is the smoke, which the World Health Organisation said kills 54,000 Afghans a year. Most of those killed are children under five, it said."

And I wouldn't be too quick to call their water decent either. Without chlorination or even simple boiling before use, there are a whole host of parasites and diseases that could easily wipe out entire villages. Cholera isn't a pretty disease when it gets into the community's water supply.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.