Depends who you mean by the elite.
replyThe aristocracy, certainly.
The upper middle class (i.e. professional class - I know other countries define these things differently) that provided the administrators were just good at their jobs and worked hard. Leonard Woolf's autobiography is a great insider view. Histories of the period too.
The upper middle class were decidedly not elite at that time and very much "working class plus"
replyStill are, arguably. Dependent on earnings rather than wealth.
replyThey did have a lot of privileges, especially when employed in the colonies.
I think we are entering a wierd era where a huge population (baby boomers) are returing with incredible passive wealth compared to any other working class era in history.
replyThis is... a mass elite or more of one that may have ever existed before including the small merchant class of the late 1800s
Baby boomers are aged between 66 and 80, so most of them have already retired. We are not entering the era, we are in it.
replyAnd though some are quite wealthy, the average Boomer net worth of about $1.6MM is concentrated in the wealthy top few, like any other demographic. The median Boomer has a net worth of $300-$400K, the largest fraction of which is probably their house (so not income-producing), and that isn't really a lot to live off of in 2026.
replyWhile the house isn't producing, it is expense reducing, and that works out to be the same thing. Assuming that the house is paid for, of course, if your net worth is really only $300K, odds are you don't have the house paid for either: social Security is the bulk of your income, which, it's enough to live on, but it isn't a life of luxury.
reply>so not income-producing
replyDepends on what you consider a reverse mortgage/equity loan they plan to die before paying.
Very true. And the way things are going, just in the English-speaking countries, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, those between 18 and 40 are having more trouble buying that house or condo.
replyThose luxury apartments are going up everywhere, at least in the United States. $2200 a month with amenities for a one bedroom studio.
> The median Boomer has a net worth of $300-$400K, the largest fraction of which is probably their house (so not income-producing)
replyWhat? Do you not live in your house?
On other social media platforms, the boomers are aged 28 to 107. And I'm not exaggerating, you can check for yourself. The muddying of definitions is the root of all evil.
replyThe age range of baby boomers is not seriously in question no matter what some internet random on social may say. At most it's a little fuzzy around the edges, but Wikipedia's range of 1946 and 1964 seems on the mark.
replyI believe Victorian wealth disparity was on par with today's in America -- perhaps America has slightly more "power law" wealth at the very top of the percentage charts -- but for those in charge of new empires, maybe this article will be very useful and remind them it's better to go party in SF than it is to put in too much time in the office.
replyNot in the least. Today in the US less than 1% of the population works as home service. In victorian England it was around 10%.
replyThe US is a powerful "empire", but the UK is the most powerful Empire to ever have existed.
deleted
replyI'm not sure that demonstrates anything. That just demonstrates that people work different jobs than they did back then; it doesn't tell us anything about wealth distribution.
replyNowadays service jobs are externalized. Try to compare how big chunk of the population are in service industries now and then.
replyBack then they had a private coachman and now you have an independent contractor with the Uber app.
We've always have public coachmen and public bars and restaurants. The fact that there are many more now only means a lot more people can afford them.
reply21% of US jobs are service occupations. All you've really done is establish that cars exist so the wealthy have deemed it no longer necessary to allow filthy peasants to live in their mansions.
replyThat's an unusual measure -- and I like it. I wonder what those percentages are in very wealthy communities in America, e.g. Greenwich and surroundings, Nantucket, Hamptons plus labor communities west.
replyRent seeking how? As the article says, most government positions were unpaid and to be an MP required paying all your own election expenses out of pocket, which were huge. They did it for the prestige and social rewards, not financial. Landowners were expected to take on government roles, also for free.
replyI know! How could these literal landlords be rent-seeking by taking unpaid positions of political influence to increase literal rental income and protect their wealth?
replySomeone’s never heard of regulatory capture
replyIts rent seeking because they’re using the government role to bring in the dough for themselves after they get the role. It just takes a bit of money upfront similar to a landlord buying a house.
That’s also how you restrict government roles to the rich who only use it for personal gain. Similar to people who believe that Trump is generously by “donating” his salary back but not realizing that he and his family are earning far more in bribes and kickbacks using his position.
replyYou're asserting a lot of things that aren't in the article. If you want to argue Victorian-era MPs were all motivated by corruption then go ahead but you'll need to cite strong evidence for that, because the general consensus was that MPs of that time were not particularly corrupt. As the article says, they didn't even spend much time on lawmaking at all, so there wasn't a lot of legislation to abuse.
replyAnd to get a promotion in the army you had to buy it.
replyCareful, that's some of that stuff that they teach in humanities and classics courses. You know, what is being labeled as wasteful or impractical in this thread.
replyThe first rule of success is to own your definition of success.
replyWhat if you fell into it by accident? I fell into it because I like computers. and the design department I worked in at the time. started an investment club.
replyIs there a form of (self-)success that manifests when you accomplish what other people and only other people wanted you to accomplish? That'd be their success, not yours.
replyI don’t think that’s a helpful explanation. This period was the age of empires. Why were the Victorian elites so much more successful at it than their counterparts?
replyOne way of thinking about it, the success of the elite (meaning the aristocracy) may be separate from the success of the empire. Most of the work behind the latter was done by the industrial bourgeoisie, engineers, workers, colonized people, etc., so the question is, how big a direct impact did the elite have on the empire? How successful they were individually is a different question.
replyThis whole article is not about the aristocracy.
replyIn most corporations, most of the work is not done by the CEO. Yet a good or bad CEO can still have a big impact.
replyIsn't it exactly how the tech industry largely operates today?
reply