Author Topic: Jane Austen economics  (Read 8496 times)

Zoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: USA
Jane Austen economics
« on: October 12, 2020, 06:00:41 AM »
Hey, everybody--in the "Relatives who just don't get it" thread, a discussion started up regarding the economic aspects of the works of Jane Austen.  Here's the post (mine) that started it off--feel free to continue the discussion here!

Ideally I think each half of a couple should be responsible adults and have access and knowledge about the household finances. That is how it works between my husband and me.

But realistically I understand that some people aren’t capable of that. With my parents my mother controls the money and my father gets a okay money allowance. They do discuss major things and make decisions together, but it was long ago decided that if he ran the finances they would be in debt, the way he was when the two of them met. Similarly my FIL had the impulse control and understanding of a child, so he got an allowance and my MIL controls it all.

This reminds me of a character from Jane Austen's Persuasion: Sir Walter Elliot, whose wife had, during her lifetime, managed the household efficiently and within-budget; upon her death, Sir Walter soon found himself in dire financial straits.  Rather than "retrench" (i.e., reduce expenses) in some thoughtful way, they think of MAYBE cutting off some charities, not re-doing the drawing room, or not giving the usual gift to the family middle daughter, Anne (the heroine of the novel): 

Quote from: Jane Austen
The Kellynch property was good, but not equal to Sir Walter's apprehension of the state required in its possessor. While Lady Elliot lived, there had been method, moderation, and economy, which had just kept him within his income; but with her had died all such right-mindedness, and from that period he had been constantly exceeding it. It had not been possible for him to spend less; he had done nothing but what Sir Walter Elliot was imperiously called on to do; but blameless as he was, he was not only growing dreadfully in debt, but was hearing of it so often, that it became vain to attempt concealing it longer, even partially, from his daughter. He had given her some hints of it the last spring in town; he had gone so far even as to say, "Can we retrench? Does it occur to you that there is any one article in which we can retrench?" and Elizabeth, to do her justice, had, in the first ardour of female alarm, set seriously to think what could be done, and had finally proposed these two branches of economy, to cut off some unnecessary charities, and to refrain from new furnishing the drawing-room; to which expedients she afterwards added the happy thought of their taking no present down to Anne, as had been the usual yearly custom. But these measures, however good in themselves, were insufficient for the real extent of the evil, the whole of which Sir Walter found himself obliged to confess to her soon afterwards. Elizabeth had nothing to propose of deeper efficacy. She felt herself ill-used and unfortunate, as did her father; and they were neither of them able to devise any means of lessening their expenses without compromising their dignity, or relinquishing their comforts in a way not to be borne.

There was only a small part of his estate that Sir Walter could dispose of; but had every acre been alienable, it would have made no difference. He had condescended to mortgage as far as he had the power, but he would never condescend to sell. No; he would never disgrace his name so far. The Kellynch estate should be transmitted whole and entire, as he had received it.

Their two confidential friends, Mr Shepherd, who lived in the neighbouring market town, and Lady Russell, were called to advise them; and both father and daughter seemed to expect that something should be struck out by one or the other to remove their embarrassments and reduce their expenditure, without involving the loss of any indulgence of taste or pride.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 06:02:29 AM by Zoot »

economista

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2020, 06:34:04 AM »
PTF!

expatartist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Location: Hong Kong/Paris
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2020, 06:43:31 AM »
Great concept for a thread!

teen persuasion

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2020, 07:33:26 AM »
I'm in!

I'm always sitting up and paying attention when economics are referenced in Jane Austen's works.  Just how much was $5k income worth in her day?  What's it equivalent to now?  What were they invested in?  How much of their income was from the estate (rents?, produce?)?  What were the built-in costs of running those estates with various servants?  Then again, how much of the servants' "income" was in the form of cash pay, and how much was perks provided to them (housing, meals, clothing, etc)?

Then I start comparing things to current-day employment, and the outsourcing of household labor (since servant labor has virtually disappeared).

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6197
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2020, 07:37:06 AM »
Wonderful thread.

Might I offer up Thackeray and his Vanity Fair also for consideration in which  he makes several references to Rawdon and Becky living on “ nothing a year.” Credit. And always running from the creditors. And Mrs. Becky prostituting herself for a sponsor, a sugar daddy in modern terms.

And then  there was the economic disaster that befell Amelia’s father, and their subsequent sink in society.But Amelia’s father engaged in some sort of commerce and was  not of the genteel folks in Austen’s world.  Thackeray was, what, 60-80 years later? when there was much more industry, so by then a different world and the crumbling Aristocracy was  symbolized by Rawdon’s father.

I always loved the concept, from one of these Victorian novels, that “the weekend is vulgar.“  That is because to people of quality, Monday is the same as Saturday. If you have to work for your income and can only recreate on the weekend, you are not a person of quality.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 02:18:11 PM by iris lily »

Moonwaves

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
  • Location: Germany
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2020, 08:03:57 AM »
I'm in!

I'm always sitting up and paying attention when economics are referenced in Jane Austen's works.  Just how much was $5k income worth in her day?  What's it equivalent to now?  What were they invested in?  How much of their income was from the estate (rents?, produce?)?  What were the built-in costs of running those estates with various servants?  Then again, how much of the servants' "income" was in the form of cash pay, and how much was perks provided to them (housing, meals, clothing, etc)?

Then I start comparing things to current-day employment, and the outsourcing of household labor (since servant labor has virtually disappeared).

There are websites to figure it out. No idea how accurate any of them are though. Here's one: https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/

Quote
In 2019, the relative value of £5,000   0s   0d from 1810 ranges from £341,900.00 to £23,830,000.00.

That is a very wide range but even at the lower end, I reckon I could manage. LOL

Moonwaves

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
  • Location: Germany
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2020, 08:10:53 AM »
Oh no, I'm supposed to be trying to spend less time on the internet but I may be falling down another rabbit hole.

One project put together a list of the different resources available for figuring out the current value of money from a certain year. https://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html

I like this one, from the UK National Archives.When I put in 5k from 1810 there, it says the following:
Quote
In 2017, this is worth approximately:
£232,626.00
In 1810, you could buy one of the following with £5,000:
 Horses: 476
 Cows: 1000
 Wool: 5555 stones
 Wheat: 878 quarters
 Wages: 33333 days (skilled tradesman)

habanero

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2020, 08:28:37 AM »
According to Pickety (yes, the french dude who wrote Capital in the 21st century - at the time apparently the most started-but-not-finished book o Kindle) in the novels taking place in the bourgoise in the 19th century, be that in the US, France or the UK,  return of capital was assumed around 5%. Didn't matter if it was real estate, farmland, government bonds and equities, 5% it was apparently. Government bonds turned out to be a wrong bet in the very long term however, wars and revolutions had a tendency to do nasty stuff to the value of such securities.

At least it made deciding on an asset allocation a lot easier.

teen persuasion

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2020, 09:29:46 AM »
Oh no, I'm supposed to be trying to spend less time on the internet but I may be falling down another rabbit hole.

One project put together a list of the different resources available for figuring out the current value of money from a certain year. https://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html

I like this one, from the UK National Archives.When I put in 5k from 1810 there, it says the following:
Quote
In 2017, this is worth approximately:
£232,626.00
In 1810, you could buy one of the following with £5,000:
 Horses: 476
 Cows: 1000
 Wool: 5555 stones
 Wheat: 878 quarters
 Wages: 33333 days (skilled tradesman)
Yes, I've gone down the same rabbit hole, searching it out, and finding widely varying figures.  First there's the issue of converting the currencies and correcting for inflation.  Then there's the question of value - what that money could buy.

Currently rereading Emma - she was an heiress of £30k.  I remember in P&P, everyone discussed how much a male character was worth "per year", AKA income from their investments, not the total in investments themselves.  But the Bennett sisters expected a dowry of £1k each from their mother's £5k inheritance, and it was mentioned the income from those would be £50/yr (£250 for Mrs Bennett if she was widowed and Mr Collins inherited the family's current £2k/year) - which tracks the 5% interest mentioned above.  So is Emma's £30k her investments, or her annual income?

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9069
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2020, 10:32:42 AM »
We're now retired, live on what my brother-in-law refers to as "the estate", and finance it with passive income from investments and rent.    I really do feel like landed gentry.   

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6820
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2020, 11:50:59 AM »
Hi! If you're interested in these questions at the lower end of the scale, I highly recommend Round About A Pound A Week by Maud Pember Reeves. Details the weekly expenditures of artisan labourers who were not technically "poor" earning... you guessed it, round about a pound a week. Bit later, though, early 20thC.

Chraurelius

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2020, 01:42:24 PM »
If you consult "Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management" you can  learn all kinds of things.  A lower level maid would be paid 1 shilling 3 pence a week, plus food, housing, beer, and clothes.  She would work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, with an afternoon off each fortnight, or two weeks.  A ladies maid could make 30£ a year and up, or $150. One should also not pay more than 1/12 one's income for housing.  It's not clear if utilities (coal, etc) and repairs are included.  Housing seems less expensive, while food, clothes, and manufactured goods were very expensive. 

Mr Darcy's income was 10,000£ a year, or probably over $1,000,000 a year, while you could live, as a gentleman, on around $1000.  You can get by on the income of £1000, £50 a year, but not as a gentleman.  It would be a nice supplement to that £1000 a year.
Btw, £1 was equal to 5$ back then.

What makes it tricky is that costs have risen very unevenly, and what constitutes a middle class life is different.  Another point I ran across:  a laborer made about the same amount as the allowance of a public school student.  You can understand why lower class people were so put vulnerable -- they would do just about anything for a tip of a shilling.
Those dollar comparisons are not very useful.  Instead of 477 horses, or whatever, it would be better to think about the cost of trained carriage horses, their feed and meds, the coachman's and groom's wages, housing, and other expenses, plus the carriage house and stable, and miscellaneous expenses.  All that, versus an expensive car or two.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9069
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2020, 03:35:35 PM »
A labor-based economy vs a manufactured goods based economy is very different.

I lived in Ethiopia for a bit over a year.

Manufactured goods were expensive.   For example, an imported TV set would cost 2-3 times the going rate in the US and it had the features from several years earlier, it wasn't even a latest model.

Yet, you could hire someone to do work remarkably cheaply.   A neighbor had a truck dump a load of rough stone in front of their home and four guys spent three or four months chiseling those stones (with unpowered hand tools) into blocks for a stone wall.  And not just a stone wall, but a stone wall with custom designed texture and colored stone motifs in it.    Such a thing would be incredibly expensive to do in the US.   


diapasoun

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: The Emerald City
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2020, 04:18:38 PM »
Ooo ptf.

Dictionary Time

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2020, 04:22:33 PM »
This reminds me of one of my favorite parts of Pride & Prejudice.  Spoilers ahead (not really, it’s part of the initial premise)

“When first Mr. Bennet had married, economy was held to be perfectly useless, for, of course, they were to have a son.... Five daughters successively entered the world, but yet the son was to come.... This event had at last been despaired of, but it was then too late to be saving. Mrs. Bennet had no turn for economy, and her husbands love of independence had alone prevented their exceeding their income.”

It reminds me of people I know who don’t need to worry about saving, because they’re going to be so much better off in the future.

TomTX

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
  • Location: Texas
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2020, 05:48:29 PM »
Very nice. I'm in.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20530
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2020, 06:03:56 PM »
This reminds me of one of my favorite parts of Pride & Prejudice.  Spoilers ahead (not really, it’s part of the initial premise)

“When first Mr. Bennet had married, economy was held to be perfectly useless, for, of course, they were to have a son.... Five daughters successively entered the world, but yet the son was to come.... This event had at last been despaired of, but it was then too late to be saving. Mrs. Bennet had no turn for economy, and her husbands love of independence had alone prevented their exceeding their income.”

It reminds me of people I know who don’t need to worry about saving, because they’re going to be so much better off in the future.

Yeah...but...they *did* end up a hell of a lot better off in the end by gaining two extremely rich son in laws.

Fi(re) on the Farm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
  • Location: New Englandish
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2020, 06:11:16 PM »
PTF!

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5827
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2020, 06:59:13 PM »
Tossing my own PTF in here. Haven't read any of the books, but I might have to start...

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9069
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2020, 07:11:39 PM »
Just a bit of encouragement about being in the gentry in this time period...

SmartyCat

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2020, 09:25:45 PM »
PTF

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


habanero

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2020, 03:04:33 AM »
Here is the paragraph from "Capital in the 21st century" btw

For the sake of concreteness, let us note, too, that the average rate of return on land in rural
societies is typically on the order of 4–5 percent. In the novels of Jane Austen and Honoré de Balzac,
the fact that land (like government bonds) yields roughly 5 percent of the amount of capital invested
(or, equivalently, that the value of capital corresponds to roughly twenty years of annual rent) is so
taken for granted that it often goes unmentioned. Contemporary readers were well aware that it took
capital on the order of 1 million francs to produce an annual rent of 50,000 francs.

For nineteenthcentury novelists and their readers, the relation between capital and annual rent was self-evident, and
the two measuring scales were used interchangeably, as if rent and capital were synonymous, or
perfect equivalents in two different languages.



Another passage from the book that might fit in this discusstion:

In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century novels, money was everywhere, not only as an abstract force but
above all as a palpable, concrete magnitude. Writers frequently described the income and wealth of
their characters in francs or pounds, not to overwhelm us with numbers but because these quantities
established a character’s social status in the mind of the reader. Everyone knew what standard of
living these numbers represented.

These monetary markers were stable, moreover, because growth was relatively slow, so that the
amounts in question changed only very gradually, over many decades. In the eighteenth century, per
capita income grew very slowly. In Great Britain, the average income was on the order of 30 pounds
a year in the early 1800s, when Jane Austen wrote her novels. The same average income could have
been observed in 1720 or 1770. Hence these were very stable reference points, with which Austen
had grown up. She knew that to live comfortably and elegantly, secure proper transportation and
clothing, eat well, and find amusement and a necessary minimum of domestic servants, one needed—
by her lights—at least twenty to thirty times that much. The characters in her novels consider
themselves free from need only if they dispose of incomes of 500 to 1,000 pounds a year.


Imma

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3193
  • Location: Europe
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2020, 05:31:42 AM »
PTF! Really love reading all of this.

As a teenager I was told off for reading "romance novels" like these. If people think those books are about romance, there's something wrong with them.

What has always struck me is that people are not only described as "having an income of £x" but that there's an assumption about spending in there as well. If you have x income you have x amount of servants and x amount of material posessions. You wouldn't go and spend less because your material wealth defined your social class. And it seems there's also some social responsability - some elderly staff are described as having been with a family since before the current Lord or Lady was born. It seems those people were kept on as staff even though they had reached an age where they probably weren't so productive anymore.

Hadilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2020, 06:56:14 AM »
I thought this was apropos, especially the second half: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/05/how-to-misread-jane-austen

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2652
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2020, 01:58:23 PM »
PTF! Really love reading all of this.

As a teenager I was told off for reading "romance novels" like these. If people think those books are about romance, there's something wrong with them.

What has always struck me is that people are not only described as "having an income of £x" but that there's an assumption about spending in there as well. If you have x income you have x amount of servants and x amount of material posessions. You wouldn't go and spend less because your material wealth defined your social class. And it seems there's also some social responsability - some elderly staff are described as having been with a family since before the current Lord or Lady was born. It seems those people were kept on as staff even though they had reached an age where they probably weren't so productive anymore.

The higher-ranking staff might have that situation, but the grunt work in the kitchen and the barn was physically strenuous and the pay was chiefly in the form of lodging, food, and clothing. Jobs like that turned over more often because they kind of sucked.

diapasoun

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: The Emerald City
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2020, 02:42:47 PM »
Hadilly, that link is fantastic. Thank you.

Hadilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2020, 04:09:16 PM »
So interesting, right?!?

diapasoun

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: The Emerald City
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2020, 04:26:28 PM »
Yes! I already knew a fair bit of the facts discussed, but the actual discussion really pulled a few things together for me in a fantastic way.

expatartist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Location: Hong Kong/Paris
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2020, 08:08:44 PM »
A labor-based economy vs a manufactured goods based economy is very different.

I lived in Ethiopia for a bit over a year.

Manufactured goods were expensive.   For example, an imported TV set would cost 2-3 times the going rate in the US and it had the features from several years earlier, it wasn't even a latest model.

Yet, you could hire someone to do work remarkably cheaply.   A neighbor had a truck dump a load of rough stone in front of their home and four guys spent three or four months chiseling those stones (with unpowered hand tools) into blocks for a stone wall.  And not just a stone wall, but a stone wall with custom designed texture and colored stone motifs in it.    Such a thing would be incredibly expensive to do in the US.

Exactly. Life was similar in Cambodia when I lived there (Siem Reap, 2005-6). Pretty much everything we needed - from manufactured items to affordable produce - came from elsewhere, particularly neighbouring Thailand and Vietnam.

-----

Excellent New Yorker article on Austen as viewer rather than participant in that society.

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6820
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2020, 04:35:29 AM »
I thought this was apropos, especially the second half: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/05/how-to-misread-jane-austen

Splendid article, thank you. I was particularly interested in the fact that common rights were said to have doubled the income of many families. I have always been intrigued by how many people seemed to take part of their pay in what we might call "benefits in kind". Servants were housed and fed, farm workers might live in tied cottages, etc. Of course jobs come with benefits today but, aside from US health insurance, they seem to be fancy extras.

Whereas if an estate gardener who lived in a tied cottage and had rights to gather firewood in the estate forest and was given a ham every Christmas and a certain amount of the kitchen garden produce for his own use couldn't work any more... well, that was he and his family's necessities all gone, like that.

And all of those things are not things that you can save for future years. Our salary economy is very different in that we have so much control over the products of our labour - we can spend it on whatever we like or save it for the future. Our lifestyles are not dictated by our employer in that way. People's lives also must have been tremendously enmeshed with the big employers in a way that is paralleled today by some 'company towns' I suppose, but not in the same manner as if you were literally eating the leftovers from their table.

ETA: Given the "capital = income" discussion above, I wonder what would happen to the "top X% owned X% of wealth" if you reversed the equation. If "income = capital", what effect would it have if you factored in all the non-monetary income received by those at the bottom and redid the calculation in terms of annual income. Surely it would double the lot of the bottom X%, making society look, well, a little less unequal?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 04:38:20 AM by shelivesthedream »

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
  • Location: England
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2020, 05:57:27 AM »
According to Pickety (yes, the french dude who wrote Capital in the 21st century - at the time apparently the most started-but-not-finished book o Kindle) in the novels taking place in the bourgoise in the 19th century, be that in the US, France or the UK,  return of capital was assumed around 5%. Didn't matter if it was real estate, farmland, government bonds and equities, 5% it was apparently. Government bonds turned out to be a wrong bet in the very long term however, wars and revolutions had a tendency to do nasty stuff to the value of such securities.

At least it made deciding on an asset allocation a lot easier.

In the UK, many of the class of people described in Austen novels had the income, but not necessarily access to the capital. Land was 'entailed' so that it was inherited within the family, and an income derived from it, but the current 'owner' wasn't able to sell it or for it to ever pass out of the family through a will. Your dissolute gambler son could waste all of his money and run up debts, but he couldn't sell the family estate.

One of the big things happening at the time, which Austen explores through characters like Dashwood in Sense & Sensibility, is the enclosure acts. Landowners, clergy (and to a lesser extent lawyers) took ownership of land which had previously been owned and farmed in common. So a piece of land that had previously been open for anyone to graze their animals, or to gather firewood or collect fruit and nuts or whatever (often with traditional rights about who could do what) was now fenced off and became part of the private property of a local wealthy landowner. Often, poor farmers or those with a mortgage were turned into forced sellers by the same process (Dashwood buys his neighbour Gibson's farm in this way). On the one hand, it made agriculture more efficient and the country able to feed more people, but at the same time it created a much bigger gap between rich and poor, and led directly to mass emigration and starvation for the rural poor.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7728
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2020, 01:38:18 PM »
PTF. So interesting!

pachnik

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2020, 02:36:17 PM »
I definitely want to follow this thread too.  I'll be rereading Sense & Sensibility in a few days and will post what I notice about finances. 

Zoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: USA
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2020, 03:23:09 PM »
I definitely want to follow this thread too.  I'll be rereading Sense & Sensibility in a few days and will post what I notice about finances.

There's SO MUCH in that book about money--the entire first chapter could go in the Inheritance Drama thread, and there's a great discussion later in the book about the amount of money one needs to be happy.  Austen is very careful to point out who gets what, and in what specific amounts, in the end.

diapasoun

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: The Emerald City
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2020, 04:52:24 PM »
I really want to reread all of Austen now, and bring up all the economic tidbits in this thread...

Morning Glory

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5350
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2020, 05:12:56 PM »
I really want to reread all of Austen now, and bring up all the economic tidbits in this thread...

Me too. PTF.

By the River

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2020, 07:01:01 AM »
Sounds like there should be a mustachian book club with Jane Austen's work as book #1.   

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4926
  • Age: 52
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2020, 07:07:15 AM »
Mrs. Goddard has, what 20 pairs of girls to march to church? How big is her house/school that it seems to double the parish population? Who, besides a rich man in trade providing for his illegitimate daughter, sends their kids to this out of the way place where the girls are in no danger of accumulating too many accomplishments?

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9069
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2020, 07:32:51 AM »
Mrs. Goddard has, what 20 pairs of girls to march to church? How big is her house/school that it seems to double the parish population? Who, besides a rich man in trade providing for his illegitimate daughter, sends their kids to this out of the way place where the girls are in no danger of accumulating too many accomplishments?

You can put a lot of kids in one room if you want to.  There aren't any zoning restrictions.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4926
  • Age: 52
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2020, 09:02:37 AM »
Mrs. Goddard has, what 20 pairs of girls to march to church? How big is her house/school that it seems to double the parish population? Who, besides a rich man in trade providing for his illegitimate daughter, sends their kids to this out of the way place where the girls are in no danger of accumulating too many accomplishments?

You can put a lot of kids in one room if you want to.  There aren't any zoning restrictions.

This is the bedroom at Mrs. Goddard's.


Yes, but four of those bedrooms, plus classrooms, parlors, dining, teachers and servants, plus boarders like Harriet (seems to have a private room)...

Anyway, Emma is one of the best for the full range of a village. From the ill and poverty stricken who only exist as charity cases, the Bates who we should be charitable to, but not condescending...to the successful farmer (neither needs charity nor deserves friendship) the tradesmen who Emma will have to accept because her friends do..Mr. Weston who made his mark, was bancrupted by an extravagant wife, made another fortune, bought a small estate that he had his heart set on...Mr. Knightly with his ancient family home, but is none the less stretched a bit and his brother is a lawyer...I imagine moving in with the Woodhouses is actually a relief to him that will allow him to get ahead and finally build the estate, rather than just maintaining it...

LightTripper

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
  • Location: London, UK
  • Rural Londoner. Lazy workaholic. Confused.
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2020, 09:27:43 AM »
PTF!

diapasoun

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: The Emerald City
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2020, 09:52:57 AM »
Sounds like there should be a mustachian book club with Jane Austen's work as book #1.

Soooo many subparts. :) And would we read in chronological order? Order of interest as polled? '

(I have a tendency to accidentally organize book clubs, so if anyone actually wants to do this... let me know.)

Zoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: USA
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2020, 10:27:11 AM »
Sounds like there should be a mustachian book club with Jane Austen's work as book #1.

Soooo many subparts. :) And would we read in chronological order? Order of interest as polled? '

(I have a tendency to accidentally organize book clubs, so if anyone actually wants to do this... let me know.)

I am SO in.  :)

diapasoun

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: The Emerald City
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2020, 11:17:05 AM »
Chronological publication order is probably easiest -- that involves very little discussion amongst us about order, and it might be interesting to see how she changes over time with views re: economic things.

Two other questions:

How do we want to pace this? (A novel a month, reading X number of chapters per week? Something else?)

How much do we want to limit discussion to the economic aspects? There's obviously plenty to discuss elsewhere in these, too.

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6820
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2020, 11:52:51 AM »
Not sure if I will read along, probably, but I'd be very interested in discussion focusing on day to day life of the characters in her novels. So, frugality, cooking, housing - that kind of thing. More the granular stuff than world events.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4926
  • Age: 52
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2020, 11:53:13 AM »
Some of you may also be interested in exploring Elizabeth Gaskell. While she doesn't have Austen's fame, the themes are similar, right down to "elegant economy."

pachnik

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2020, 12:02:33 PM »
Sounds like there should be a mustachian book club with Jane Austen's work as book #1.

Soooo many subparts. :) And would we read in chronological order? Order of interest as polled? '

(I have a tendency to accidentally organize book clubs, so if anyone actually wants to do this... let me know.)

Count me in!   I would love to do this.  :) 

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6197
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #47 on: October 15, 2020, 01:30:13 PM »
Some of you may also be interested in exploring Elizabeth Gaskell. While she doesn't have Austen's fame, the themes are similar, right down to "elegant economy."

Wives and daughters is one of my favorite novels.

Can anyone tell me off the top of their head if Trollope treats economics Subjects well? My public library has two shelves full of Trollope novels, and I told myself that when I retired I would start reading them. But I didn’t.

diapasoun

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: The Emerald City
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #48 on: October 15, 2020, 02:22:40 PM »
Seconding Gaskell. North and South very explicitly deals with industrialization and the labor movement, too, which is extra interesting.

*****

@SheWhoWalksAtLunch The chapters-per-week is, I think, mostly useful as a way to focus discussion -- that's more likely to have all of us reading the same chapters and able to talk about the same things. We can always do more free-form, though, I tend to be a Wild West book clubber myself. Opinions from anyone else on this?

I don't think we necessarily need a limit on topics -- I personally am in to talk about these books pretty deeply! -- but I wanted to bring it up in case anyone was like "yeah, I've discussed these novels a billion times otherwise, let's really focus." ;) It sounds like people are overall interested in a relatively broad range of discussion, which is fun.

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
  • Location: England
Re: Jane Austen economics
« Reply #49 on: October 15, 2020, 02:38:10 PM »
Can anyone tell me off the top of their head if Trollope treats economics Subjects well? My public library has two shelves full of Trollope novels, and I told myself that when I retired I would start reading them. But I didn’t.

Depends on what you mean by 'well'. He was writing at a time when industrial capitalism was taking over from the earlier land-based economy (which he was nostalgic for). He writes a fair bit about the power of money, and about the problems of debt. Some of the books have major plotlines about scams or fraud, and the fortunes made and lost in the 1840s Railway mania - the dotcom boom of its day. He churned out a *lot* of books, so if you like them, there's like many box sets worth more to read.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!