Despite the growing wealth due to trade and commerce, prosperity lay in the hands of very few The working people, who actually produced the wealth, lived, worked and died in conditions of the most desperate poverty and degradation. Innumerable reports and surveys were carried out during the 19th century, and they all told much the same story : poor wages, impossibly long working hours, dangerous and unsanitary working conditions, even more unsanitary dwellings, little or no health provisions, high infant mortality and a short life expectancy. Life expectancy was directly related to wealth. Put simply, the poor died younger and the rich lived longer.
Any attention that the plight of working people drew from a wider middle class public was generally disparaging and attitudes tended to be laisser faire. The poor were regarded as an underclass, whose degradation was largely their own fault; frequently it was stated that God wished them to be poor; they were a semi-class of probable criminal tendencies.
Victorians distinguished between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor. Widows, orphans, old people and those whose sickness rendered them incapable of work were regarded as deserving and could receive help through the system of Poor Houses, degrading though these were. The other poor or unemployed were regarded as undeserving and, without any social support system in place, were left entirely to their own devices.
Acquired wealth, on the other hand, was commonly seen as a visible sign of virtue: the poor were bad, the rich were good - it was a natural order. Another popular concept was that if one worked hard, this would be rewarded by an increase in wealth.
2006-10-24 10:18:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doethineb 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
you have reported it. i'm no longer living interior the united kingdom any further, yet experience like a stranger once I return as there are fairly some foreigners now. the government do exactly no longer care what the taxpayer thinks they only decide for to fleece you each which way they could. regrettably the regulation abiding British public in basic terms enable them to ruin out with it, greater fool them. There must be a insurrection and the British human beings ought to assert no to paying tax, vote casting, going to artwork and so on till the government takes be conscious and easily starts off to artwork FOR the persons instead of against them. there is not any regulation interior the united kingdom there is not any crime prevention there is not any appreciate there is not any fairness there is not any equivalent rights there is now no longer a Britain to be happy with want i'm going on?
2016-10-02 21:51:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by gangwer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't agree with some of the answers given here, being old in the late 19th Century didn't necessary mean poor, it depended on their family situation. If they were of working class background they normally had large families and lived with them in their old age. If they lived in the countryside, on a farm they would certainly live on their farm until the end of their lives. Farm houses were often so big that they could accommodate several generations under one roof. I also think that old people were in general treated with respect and love as the head of the family.
The poorhouses contained just as many young as old and it's important to understand that they were not used as dumping grounds for the old and weak as it is with nursing homes today. The poorhouse or workhouse was a last resort, it was that or starving to death, but people took good care of their relatives in those days and family meant much more than it does today.
It was also quite common to remain unmarried as a bachelor, many who were in service remained with their employers for the rest of their lives. The middle and upper classes certainly had servants to take care of them or could afford to hire a nurse.
I'm not saying that it was all rosy and I'm sure that there were a lot of terrible destenies, but so there is today hidden away in old peoples homes. I just wanted to point out that despite pensions and the welfare state, it hasn't got much better or easier, we just like to think it has.
2006-10-27 12:37:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Miranda Elizabeth 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dreadful if they lived to old age that is , mostly supported by there children(that's why they had such large family's) who were very poor themselves, many died of cold neglect and starvation.
Not a good time to be alive
2006-10-25 06:10:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If they reached old age then they had to work or their families would look after them.
2006-10-24 01:59:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
back then people didnt live to old age unless they were rich. average life expectancy was about 45
2006-10-24 01:59:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by ts2alien 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
they were dead long before retirement age,eg childbirth,industrial diseases,tb ,cancer,malnutrition
2006-10-24 02:06:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by dumplingmuffin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋