Posted by Ann on July 17, 1997 at 01:13:44:
In reply to Re: The conversion factor posted by Kathy F. on July 16, 1997 at 23:32:00
] But think about what they didn't have to pay for--no electricity,
But they had to pay for candles and wood/coal for the fireplaces
] no running water [read: no plumber],
I think this was beginning to come into wealthier homes, but no plumbing meant you had to have servants to carry the water around everywhere and clean the chamber pots.
] no gasoline (or petrol, for those of British persuasion),
I would wager that it costs much more money to keep a team of horses than it does to feed a gas tank. You would not only need oats, but a stable and grooms to keep the horses and drive the team. You would also be resopnsible for the housing and board of the grooms and coachmen.
] I would wager that the large majority of modern money goes to pay modern bills, and it would be unfair to convert that to Regency money and Regency bills.
This is what I meant about not being able to simply say the accumulation of inflation would mean that x in Regency money equals y in modern money. The example I gave, the estimate that Darcy would be worth $1,000,000 a year, takes some of this extra stuff into account, but I do think that comparing him to the top 400 richest Americans is a better guideline.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.