Pre welfare state

eeguy · 18-03-2018 07:04PM

archer22 wrote: »

If you look at census returns from that time you will notice that a large percentage of husbands were much older than their wives...this appears to have been a way of ensuring that both did not grow old and infirm at the same time...the wife was still young enough to take care of the husband when he was old and the children only had the mother to look after when her time came.

That wasn't because all the young men had been blown up, gassed and machinegunned on the Western front?

Junkyard Tom · 18-03-2018 07:53PM

Billy86 wrote: »

UK life expectancy, 2011: 79 years (male), 82.8 years (female)

Q. Why do men die sooner then women statistically?

A. Because they want to.

Is that a bit sexist?

archer22 · 18-03-2018 07:55PM

eeguy wrote: »

That wasn't because all the young men had been blown up, gassed and machinegunned on the Western front?

The census returns I was looking through were Irish and from before the first world war.

But you raise an interesting point...there must have been a huge imbalance in females to males after the war.

Actually remember reading somewhere recently that Michael Collins father was in his 60s when he married Collins mother who was in her 20s..I think.

dxhound2005 · 18-03-2018 08:49PM

archer22 wrote: »

The census returns I was looking through were Irish and from before the first world war.

But you raise an interesting point...there must have been a huge imbalance in females to males after the war.

Actually remember reading somewhere recently that Michael Collins father was in his 60s when he married Collins mother who was in her 20s..I think.

There appears to be a widespread impression that vast swathes of the population died in battle in that war. In Ireland the figure is estimated to be 35,000 at the lowest and 50,000 at the highest, out of about 210,000 Irish soldiers who served. A big number, but not that significant in a population of over 3 million. The Famine certainly was a much bigger killer.

In world terms there were more deadly wars, in proportion to the population. And the Spanish Flu wiped out far more people than the Great War.

eeguy · 18-03-2018 09:01PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In world terms there were more deadly wars, in proportion to the population. And the Spanish Flu wiped out far more people than the Great War.

Yep that's true. Spanish flu disproportionatly killed younger, heathier people too, so it was a double whammy.

There was also plenty of casualties after ww1 who were no longer eleigible bachelor's for various reasons.

Hitman3000 · 18-03-2018 09:02PM

Junkyard Tom wrote:

Q. Why do men die sooner then women statistically?

Have you seen the stupid **** guys get up to in comparison to women?

archer22 · 18-03-2018 09:07PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There appears to be a widespread impression that vast swathes of the population died in battle in that war. In Ireland the figure is estimated to be 35,000 at the lowest and 50,000 at the highest, out of about 210,000 Irish soldiers who served. A big number, but not that significant in a population of over 3 million. The Famine certainly was a much bigger killer.

In world terms there were more deadly wars, in proportion to the population. And the Spanish Flu wiped out far more people than the Great War.

In the UK, France and Germany though the percentage would be fairly significant I should think...but still they all seemed to have enough manpower to start again 20 years later.

AllGunsBlazing · 18-03-2018 09:37PM

You know the future may not be so rosy either with the possibility of many longstanding job/career opportunities being phased out thanks to advances in technology. It's not like everyone can be a software developer, or whatever.

Massive unemployment could the central issue in society come the second half of this century.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 18-03-2018 09:53PM

mariaalice wrote: »

I had to study this, religious organizations and after the dissolution of the monasteries it was outdoor relief mostly in the winter given in each parish and the person has to be from the parish then it was the workhouses. The pension was introduced in 1909 they had to be over 70.

[/url] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_John_Barnardo

Orphans or sometimes children were put by parents were apprenticed out at a very young age.

The British army the poverty draft.

people went hungry and suffered from malnutrition.

At the bottom level, people weaved in and out from employment to low-level crime and back again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Labour_and_the_London_Poor

I was going over census records a few months ago and noticed that my family and a lot of neighbours aged 14 or 15 years between the census preceeding the OAP and the following census 10 years later.

A bit of creative accounting and nothing could be done about it as there were few(none?) birth records around.

sunbeam · 18-03-2018 10:17PM

Apparently the ability to recall Oíche na Gaoithe Móire in 1839 was used as a test of age for those who were unsure of their own: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/the-calm-before-the-big-wind-of-1839-was-particularly-eerie-1.3257684

Capt'n Midnight · 19-03-2018 01:09AM

mariaalice wrote: »

“The high rate had nothing to do with mental illness,” says Dr Eoin O’Sullivan, associate professor in social policy at Trinity College Dublin. “They were used to dispose of people who society didn’t want . . . They were the single biggest part of our system of coercive confinement.”

One group was older relatives.

Get a priest or doctor to sign them in an and you could take over their farm.

Kermit.de.frog · 19-03-2018 01:19AM

I have no issue per se with the Welfare State.

So long as it is not a lifestyle choice. I don't believe you should be able to have the same lifestyle as someone working minimum wage if you have not paid your stamps and are long term unemployed.

My concern is currently that may be possible though i'm not 100% certain, it's just observation. To my mind that is morally wrong.

I know of people long term on the dole seemingly able to go out multiple nights a week to "socialise". Doesn't seem that easy for most other people I know that actually work including myself. If you don't want a job fine. Just don't take the piss out of the rest of us who you rely on.

Graces7 · 19-03-2018 08:27AM

mariaalice wrote: »

At the time there were more than 20,000 patients confined behind mental hospital walls across the State, or 0.7 per cent of the general population.

In fact, Ireland led the world locking people up in institutions, with inpatient admission rates that were multiples of other countries – even ahead of the old Soviet Union.

“The high rate had nothing to do with mental illness,” says Dr Eoin O’Sullivan, associate professor in social policy at Trinity College Dublin. “They were used to dispose of people who society didn’t want . . . They were the single biggest part of our system of coercive confinement.”

That is talking about the 1970s

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-s-mental-hospitals-
the-last-gap-in-our-history-of-coercive-confinement-1.1833379

Same in the UK.Huge mental dumps like towns.. Hence the name "loony BIN"

I would think again that England was the model for this here. Just needed two signatures.

They were dreadful places. Hell on earth. As I had and have a mystery illness that defied diagnosis in those days I speak from terrible experience.

Shudders.
Now the big places are closed in the Uk and many genuinely mentally ill end up in jail

Graces7 · 19-03-2018 08:34AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have no issue per se with the Welfare State.

So long as it is not a lifestyle choice. I don't believe you should be able to have the same lifestyle as someone working minimum wage if you have not paid your stamps and are long term unemployed.

My concern is currently that may be possible though i'm not 100% certain, it's just observation. To my mind that is morally wrong.

I know of people long term on the dole seemingly able to go out multiple nights a week to "socialise". Doesn't seem that easy for most other people I know that actually work including myself. If you don't want a job fine. Just don't take the piss out of the rest of us who you rely on.

Would anyone really envy them?

And many I have met as I know a lot of FAS folk, are very genuine, and very depressed at their situation.

As long term disabled I am deeply grateful for the Welfare State especially in the UK... In past eras would have been the dreaded work'uss

But then I do not go out at nights etc and live simply and happy at that. Independence means a lot.

Will I Am Not · 19-03-2018 08:35AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have no issue per se with the Welfare State.

So long as it is not a lifestyle choice. I don't believe you should be able to have the same lifestyle as someone working minimum wage if you have not paid your stamps and are long term unemployed.

My concern is currently that may be possible though i'm not 100% certain, it's just observation. To my mind that is morally wrong.

I know of people long term on the dole seemingly able to go out multiple nights a week to "socialise". Doesn't seem that easy for most other people I know that actually work including myself. If you don't want a job fine. Just don't take the piss out of the rest of us who you rely on.

I just read a thread in Personal Issues about a woman fearing her body clock will catch up on her before having a second child is financially viable.
It’s a sorry situation to think that she wouldn’t have to give it a second thought if she spent her life on welfare.

screamer · 19-03-2018 09:20AM

Think back well before that....back to evolutionary times....the fittest survived the rest didn't.

Graces7 · 19-03-2018 09:22AM

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I just read a thread in Personal Issues about a woman fearing her body clock will catch up on her before having a second child is financially viable.
It’s a sorry situation to think that she wouldn’t have to give it a second thought if she spent her life on welfare.

??????

Graces7 · 19-03-2018 09:22AM

screamer wrote: »

Think back well before that....back to evolutionary times....the fittest survived the rest didn't.

Indeed yes. I come from sturdy stock. One of my grandmothers was a Pit Brow Lass.

bobbysands81 · 19-03-2018 09:23AM

timthumbni wrote: »

The reason I started the thread was that I was watching a tv show set in Victorian times and it struck me how did those that did not or could not get a job actually survived.

Contrasts greatly to those housed/fed/ entertained with a massive tv nowadays. All at public expense.

Thankfully we have a strong sense of community spirit and welfare which provides a safety net for the poor and most vulnerable in society.

Graces7 · 19-03-2018 10:06AM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Thankfully we have a strong sense of community spirit and welfare which provides a safety net for the poor and most vulnerable in society.

Thanks for this. Some seem to hark back to the idea of punishment that was inherent in workhouse days

You know, those places must have cost a fortune to build. Far more than Parish Relief. A question of not trusting people?

whisky_galore · 19-03-2018 11:01AM

Hunter Slow Jaguar wrote: »

I used visit and help out in one here years ago. Horrible horrible place.

It, thankfully, closed down years ago and we go a lovely new nursing home in it's stead elsewhere in the town.
Some people wanted to keep the old workhouse for a museum but sense saw through and it was demolished and replaced with new workshops for day care and a plant nursery and park.

How is it sense to obliterate the bits of history you don't like?

Think it ironic that some of these 'lovely nursing homes' are in hot water for the care. ..or lack of care...given to those in them.

archer22 · 19-03-2018 11:27AM

People tend to overlook the fact that you did not need much money to live back in those times...there wasn't a bundle of bills coming in the letterbox each day.
They didn't have the money eating consumer society we have today...all they needed was a garden to grow food and a little paid employment now and again to purchase the things they could not produce themselves such as clothing, shoes and and basic household goods and a few tools...also they repaired and reused everything.
You don't see people darning socks or patching up old clothes today (unless it's some fad fashion statement) even a leaking bucket was never thrown away but always repaired instead.

eeguy · 19-03-2018 11:55AM

archer22 wrote: »

People tend to overlook the fact that you did not need much money to live back in those times...there wasn't a bundle of bills coming in the letterbox each day.

Lifestyles are constantly changing. You didnt spend money 30 years ago like you would today. You bought a phone when you build your house. One small TV, probably one small car per house.

Never went out, rarely got a takeaway, holidays were always in Ireland in a caravan. Times and spending habits change.

bobbysands81 · 19-03-2018 11:57AM

Graces7 wrote: »

Thanks for this. Some seem to hark back to the idea of punishment that was inherent in workhouse days

You know, those places must have cost a fortune to build. Far more than Parish Relief. A question of not trusting people?

It’s within everyone’s interest in society that we have such a safety net for people. It might not be perfect but what would society be like if we ignored the poorest and most vulnerable? That would lead to a society which would completely break down and would be far more costly to all in many ways including financial.

Graces7 · 19-03-2018 12:02PM

archer22 wrote: »

People tend to overlook the fact that you did not need much money to live back in those times...there wasn't a bundle of bills coming in the letterbox each day.
They didn't have the money eating consumer society we have today...all they needed was a garden to grow food and a little paid employment now and again to purchase the things they could not produce themselves such as clothing, shoes and and basic household goods and a few tools...also they repaired and reused everything.
You don't see people darning socks or patching up old clothes today (unless it's some fad fashion statement) even a leaking bucket was never thrown away but always repaired instead.

I use mine as planters

Graces7 · 19-03-2018 12:07PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It’s within everyone’s interest in society that we have such a safety net for people. It might not be perfect but what would society be like if we ignored the poorest and most vulnerable? That would lead to a society which would completely break down and would be far more costly to all in many ways including financial.

Oh absoluteley so as my own life shows. But the parish relief system worked well without forcing folk into institutions and splitting families.

It was a kinder system. And we have moved back to that now

I was not grumblng re spending the money just that there are kin der and more financially efficient ways of supporting folk than by locking them up in an institution

Will I Am Not · 19-03-2018 12:10PM

Graces7 wrote: »

??????

Fairly self explanatory I thought?
The system is flawed when hard working people can’t afford to have children but people that have never worked can and have them heavily subsidised by the very people that can’t afford their own.

El Tarangu · 19-03-2018 12:20PM

Before the establishment of the welfare state, there were forms of welfare available ('relief'), but as each council or parish had different rules for administering it, the effectiveness of it as mechanism of welfare was very varied. Certainly it afforded a lower standard of living than social welfare would provide today.

If the OP is interested in learning more on the subject, George Orwell's books 'The Road to Wigan Pier' and 'Down and Out in Paris and London' provide an interesting insight into living conditions of England's poor during the inter-war years (though the the actual extent of Orwell's own poverty during the time of the second book has been questioned).

El Tarangu · 19-03-2018 12:25PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Quick answer to how people survived before the welfare state:

UK life expectancy, 1891: 44.1 years (male), 47.8 years (female)
UK life expectancy, 2011: 79 years (male), 82.8 years (female)

I have no doubt that the welfare state has played large role in the increase in life expectancy, but there have also been huge developments in things like food production, our understanding of nutrition, and medical science in the intervening period that would have played and even more significant role.

Graces7 · 19-03-2018 12:36PM

El Tarangu wrote: »

Before the establishment of the welfare state, there were forms of welfare available ('relief'), but as each council or parish had different rules for administering it, the effectiveness of it as mechanism of welfare was very varied. Certainly it afforded a lower standard of living than social welfare would provide today.

If the OP is interested in learning more on the subject, George Orwell's books 'The Road to Wigan Pier' and 'Down and Out in Paris and London' provide an interesting insight into living conditions of England's poor during the inter-war years (though the the actual extent of Orwell's own poverty during the time of the second book has been questioned).

I was born in Wigan and the poverty hung around into the late 40s but by then the NHS was getting into gear and that made a great difference. The back streets, 2 up 2 down were still the main housing stock.

Pre welfare state

Comments