Norge er blitt så dyrt!

[Montefalco]

Kanskje fordi man lærer litt om man studerer historie samt prater med historikere, arkeologer og forskere. Det er nok heller du som er kraftig missinformert og lever på vedtatte løgner og lekmanns manglende kunnskap.

For å ta et eksempel. I middelalderen hadde man over 30 fridager i året realtert til religiøse tilstelninger og festligheter. På toppen av det kom søndagene og mange steder også lørdagene. Basert på arkeologiske funn og notater har man konstatert at det var snarere regelen enn unntaket å jobbe 6 timers dager.

Middelalderen er langt ifra det du har lært fra hollywoodfilmer. Ta opp en bok og lært litt - jeg har hørt det kan være bra for toppetasjen

Jeg har besteforeldre som lever. De forteller en litt annen historie. De levde riktignok ikke i den lukseiøse middelalderen, men vokste opp på 20- og 30- tallet i Oslo. Man hadde mat, men det var svært enkel kost. Sild og poteter, grøt og annen billig mat. Og mine besteforeldre kom fra vanlige arbeiderhjem.

[Eriks]

Kanskje fordi man lærer litt om man studerer historie samt prater med historikere, arkeologer og forskere.

...

Middelalderen er langt ifra det du har lært fra hollywoodfilmer. Ta opp en bok og lært litt - jeg har hørt det kan være bra for toppetasjen

Tvlier ikke på at historie er et interessant studium, men kanskje ikke det beste valget hvis man skal ha råd til bolig?

[Montefalco]

Hvor har du egentlig alt dette ifra? Har du faktisk satt deg ned med en kalkulator? Har du benyttet noe som helst seriøse kilder?

Idag utgjør regelverket for utbygging og oppussing av boliger en diger murstein som selv offentlige byråkrater ikke forstår 100 %. på 50-60 tallet var den en lefse på noen få sider. Så nei, det er idag boligmarkedet er kraftig regulert. Den gangen krydde det av tomter og du fikk flotte områder for en slikk og ingenting i motsetning til idag. Det har aldri vært bygd mindre boliger i forhold til innbyggertallet enn i de siste årene. Om du ikke tror meg kan du sette deg ned en dag og gå gjennom SSB.no sitt innhold selv. Anbefaler deg dog å ha litt kunnskap om statistikk over hva man lærer på grunnskolen.

Gratis legehjelp? Jobber legene dere bruker uten lønn? Ikke det nei. ikke så gratis likevel da altså. Vil anbefale deg å slutte missbruke utrykk. "kostbar inneffektiv legehjelp" vil vel være mer korrekt å si.

Jeg anntar dere jobber begge to. Jeg anntar også at dere har minst en gjennomsnittslønn i norge idag. Det betyr at dere legger igjen ca 490 000 i statskassen hvert år gjennom skatter og avgifter. Tett opp mot 5 millioner iløpet av ett tiår altså. Jeg spør da, hvor mye tror du en toppforsikring ville kostet som ga dere tilgang på de beste legene, de beste tannlegene, de beste sykehusene og ikke minst -dere kunne valgt selv hvor dere gikk om dere var missfornøyd med måten dere ble behandlet?

Jeg kan gi dere et hint. Langt mindre enn 490 000 kroner. Snarere 40-50 000. Altså 1/10. Da hadde dere hatt 450 000 å benytte på skolegang/barnehage, veikostnader og annet.

Så hvem er det som blir lurt her? At du nevner propagandapopulisten Michael Moore er jo forsåvidt avslørende nok. Han og Goebbels ville nok hatt mye å prate om hvis de møttes.

Du kommer ikke spesielt langt med kr 500 000,- I barnehagen er det 1 ansatt pr 3 barn. Lønnskostnad med sosiale utgifterca kr 200 000,- pr barn. I tillegg kostnader ved lokalene.

Helseforsikring for 5 personer ville vært vesentlig høøyere enn det du skisserer.

I tillegg glemmer du en vesentlig faktor. I de landene som har det slik at man betaler for alt selv, er samfunnet helt anderledes enn i Norge. Det er store deler av befolkningen som ikke hadde hatt råd til noe som helst.

[Guybrush]

jeg anntar at de fleste her har hørt om MIT (Massachusets Institute of Technology) - også annsett som verdens ledende forsknings og utdanningsinstitusjon.

Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's

from The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, by Juliet B. Schor - MIT

The labouring man will take his rest long in the morning; a good piece of the day is spent afore he come at his work; then he must have his breakfast, though he have not earned it at his accustomed hour, or else there is grudging and murmuring; when the clock smiteth, he will cast down his burden in the midway, and whatsoever he is in hand with, he will leave it as it is, though many times it is marred afore he come again; he may not lose his meat, what danger soever the work is in. At noon he must have his sleeping time, then his bever in the afternoon, which spendeth a great part of the day; and when his hour cometh at night, at the first stroke of the clock he casteth down his tools, leaveth his work, in what need or case soever the work standeth.

-James Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, ca. 1570

One of 20th centurys most durable myths is that it has reduced human toil. This myth is typically defended by a comparison of the modern forty-hour week with its seventy- or eighty-hour counterpart in the nineteenth century. The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption is that the eighty-hour standard has prevailed for centuries. The comparison conjures up the dreary life of medieval peasants, toiling steadily from dawn to dusk. We are asked to imagine the journeyman artisan in a cold, damp garret, rising even before the sun, laboring by candlelight late into the night.

These images are backward projections of modern work patterns. And they are false. Before modern time, most people did not work very long hours at all. The tempo of life was slow, even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure. When industrialism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that working hours in the mid-nineteenth century constitute the most prodigious work effort in the entire history of humankind.

Therefore, we must take a longer view and look back not just one hundred years, but three or four, even six or seven hundred. Consider a typical working day in the medieval period. It stretched from dawn to dusk (sixteen hours in summer and eight in winter), but, as the Bishop Pilkington has noted, work was intermittent - called to a halt for breakfast, lunch, the customary afternoon nap, and dinner. Depending on time and place, there were also midmorning and midafternoon refreshment breaks. These rest periods were the traditional rights of laborers, which they enjoyed even during peak harvest times. During slack periods, which accounted for a large part of the year, adherence to regular working hours was not usual. According to Oxford Professor James E. Thorold Rogers[1], the medieval workday was not more than eight hours. The worker participating in the eight-hour movements of the late nineteenth century was "simply striving to recover what his ancestor worked by four or five centuries ago."

An important piece of evidence on the working day is that it was very unusual for servile laborers to be required to work a whole day for a lord. One day's work was considered half a day, and if a serf worked an entire day, this was counted as two "days-works."[2] Detailed accounts of artisans' workdays are available. Knoop and jones' figures for the fourteenth century work out to a yearly average of 9 hours (exclusive of meals and breaktimes)[3]. Brown, Colwin and Taylor's figures for masons suggest an average workday of 8.6 hours[4].

The contrast between industrial and pre industrial work patterns is most striking in respect to the working year. The medieval calendar was filled with holidays. Official -- that is, church -- holidays included not only long "vacations" at Christmas, Easter, and midsummer but also numerous saints' andrest days. These were spent both in sober churchgoing and in feasting, drinking and merrymaking. In addition to official celebrations, there were often weeks' worth of ales -- to mark important life events (bride ales or wake ales) as well as less momentous occasions (scot ale, lamb ale, and hock ale). All told, holiday leisure time in medieval England took up probably about one-third of the year. And the English were apparently working harder than their neighbors. The ancien règime in France is reported to have guaranteed fifty-two Sundays, ninety rest days, and thirty-eight holidays. In Spain, travelers noted that holidays totaled five months per year.[5]

The peasant's free time extended beyond officially sanctioned holidays. There is considerable evidence of what economists call the backward-bending supply curve of labor -- the idea that when wages rise, workers supply less labor. During one period of unusually high wages (the late fourteenth century), many laborers refused to work "by the year or the half year or by any of the usual terms but only by the day." And they worked only as many days as were necessary to earn their customary income -- which in this case amounted to about 120 days a year, for a probable total of only 1,440 hours annually (this estimate assumes a 12-hour day because the days worked were probably during spring, summer and fall). A thirteenth-century estime finds that whole peasant families did not put in more than 150 days per year on their land. Manorial records from fourteenth-century England indicate an extremely short working year -- 175 days -- for servile laborers. Later evidence for farmer-miners, a group with control over their worktime, indicates they worked only 180 days a year.

Om ikke det er nok finner man også basisen i følgende kilder:

[1] James E. Thorold Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (London: Allen and Unwin, 1949), 542-43.

[2] H.S. Bennett, Life on the English Manor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 104-6.

[3] Douglas Knoop and G.P. Jones, The Medieval Mason (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967), 105.

[4] R. Allen Brown, H.M. Colvin, and A.J. Taylor, The History of the King's Works, vol. I, the Middle Ages (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1963).

[5] Edith Rodgers, Discussion of Holidays in the Later Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), 10-11. See also C.R. Cheney, "Rules for the observance of feast-days in medieval England", Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 34, 90, 117-29 (1961).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliet_Schor

Juliet Schor is a Professor of sociology . She studies trends in working time and leisure, consumerism, the relationship between work and family, women's issues and economic justice. She received her undergraduate degree from Wesleyan University and her Ph.D in economics from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Before joining Boston College, she taught at Harvard University for 17 years, in the Department of Economics and the Committee on Degrees in Women's Studies.

Endret 24. februar 2013 av Guybrush

[Guybrush]

Tvlier ikke på at historie er et interessant studium, men kanskje ikke det beste valget hvis man skal ha råd til bolig?

Hvis du ikke skjønner relevansen når folk argumenterer med at vi har det så skrekkelig bra idag så er det vel ingenting mer å si.

[Montefalco]

Hvis du ikke skjønner relevansen når folk argumenterer med at vi har det så skrekkelig bra idag så er det vel ingenting mer å si.

Hvis du ikke forstår at det er ekstremt bra å bo i Norge, er det heller ikke så mer å si. Absolutt ingen andre land har så stor andel av befolkningen som eier egen bolig. Norge topper alle internasjonale statistikker over hvor det er best å bo for flertallet av befolkningen.

Jada, det er mange land der de rikeste har det bedre enn gjennomsnittet i Norge. Men der har flertallet dårligere boligforhold, kjøpekraft, legehjelp m.m. enn det vi har her.

[slask]

Jeg er enig i at det er dyrt i Norge. Frisør f.eks, 2600 kr for klipp og farge. Crazy. En øl på pub koster vel fort 80 - 90 kr nå for tiden? Lenge siden jeg har vært ute så husker ikke. For oss som ikke får økt lønning så blir det vanskelig å klare seg. Eller jeg går kanskje opp 2 kr i året, men blir ikke mye high life av det.

At en frisør kan ta 2600,- for klipp og farge er nok basert på en av følgende årsaker:

A - Det er nærmest en uendelig strøm av folk med for mye penger (godt marked for å ta for godt betalt).

B - Nærmest en uendelig bøling med dumme mennesker som bruker penger de egentlig ikke har.

Det er jo marked og etterspørsel. Er det mange nok som er dumme nok til å bruke for mye penger på unødvendige tjenester og varer, så blir prisene deretter.

Jeg ergrer meg over de små prisene i butikker. For maks 2-3 år siden kostet Regia original kakao 12-14 kroner på Rema. Nå koster den godt over 30,- mens Rema sin egen kakao KOSTER 15 ca.

Nå har de original merkevare for folk som vil ha det, mens de selv tjener stort på bulk-importert ukjent vare (som godt kan være av samme kvalitet som merkevarene...). Sånn klarer de å presse ut andre enn sine egne leverandører.

Sånn er det med mange varer og viser hvilken markedsmakt de store butikkjedene har. Du vet de som later som de er så snille mot kundene... :-)

[Gud]

Feil, tar du med boligprisene er gjennomsnittlønna gått drastisk ned i forhold til prisveksten. Du skjønner sikkert også at det er revnende likegyldig om prisen på burger eller mobiltelefon går ned i forhold til lønnsnivået om det som tar 40-60 % av kontobeholdningen din øker med 100 % hvert 5 år.

Åja! Jeg glemte at her inne er det bare lov å snakke om "storbyene" i landet...

[Montefalco]

jeg anntar at de fleste her har hørt om MIT (Massachusets Institute of Technology) - også annsett som verdens ledende forsknings og utdanningsinstitusjon.

Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's

from The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, by Juliet B. Schor - MIT

The labouring man will take his rest long in the morning; a good piece of the day is spent afore he come at his work; then he must have his breakfast, though he have not earned it at his accustomed hour, or else there is grudging and murmuring; when the clock smiteth, he will cast down his burden in the midway, and whatsoever he is in hand with, he will leave it as it is, though many times it is marred afore he come again; he may not lose his meat, what danger soever the work is in. At noon he must have his sleeping time, then his bever in the afternoon, which spendeth a great part of the day; and when his hour cometh at night, at the first stroke of the clock he casteth down his tools, leaveth his work, in what need or case soever the work standeth.

-James Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, ca. 1570

One of 20th centurys most durable myths is that it has reduced human toil. This myth is typically defended by a comparison of the modern forty-hour week with its seventy- or eighty-hour counterpart in the nineteenth century. The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption is that the eighty-hour standard has prevailed for centuries. The comparison conjures up the dreary life of medieval peasants, toiling steadily from dawn to dusk. We are asked to imagine the journeyman artisan in a cold, damp garret, rising even before the sun, laboring by candlelight late into the night.

These images are backward projections of modern work patterns. And they are false. Before modern time, most people did not work very long hours at all. The tempo of life was slow, even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure. When industrialism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that working hours in the mid-nineteenth century constitute the most prodigious work effort in the entire history of humankind.

Therefore, we must take a longer view and look back not just one hundred years, but three or four, even six or seven hundred. Consider a typical working day in the medieval period. It stretched from dawn to dusk (sixteen hours in summer and eight in winter), but, as the Bishop Pilkington has noted, work was intermittent - called to a halt for breakfast, lunch, the customary afternoon nap, and dinner. Depending on time and place, there were also midmorning and midafternoon refreshment breaks. These rest periods were the traditional rights of laborers, which they enjoyed even during peak harvest times. During slack periods, which accounted for a large part of the year, adherence to regular working hours was not usual. According to Oxford Professor James E. Thorold Rogers[1], the medieval workday was not more than eight hours. The worker participating in the eight-hour movements of the late nineteenth century was "simply striving to recover what his ancestor worked by four or five centuries ago."

An important piece of evidence on the working day is that it was very unusual for servile laborers to be required to work a whole day for a lord. One day's work was considered half a day, and if a serf worked an entire day, this was counted as two "days-works."[2] Detailed accounts of artisans' workdays are available. Knoop and jones' figures for the fourteenth century work out to a yearly average of 9 hours (exclusive of meals and breaktimes)[3]. Brown, Colwin and Taylor's figures for masons suggest an average workday of 8.6 hours[4].

The contrast between industrial and pre industrial work patterns is most striking in respect to the working year. The medieval calendar was filled with holidays. Official -- that is, church -- holidays included not only long "vacations" at Christmas, Easter, and midsummer but also numerous saints' andrest days. These were spent both in sober churchgoing and in feasting, drinking and merrymaking. In addition to official celebrations, there were often weeks' worth of ales -- to mark important life events (bride ales or wake ales) as well as less momentous occasions (scot ale, lamb ale, and hock ale). All told, holiday leisure time in medieval England took up probably about one-third of the year. And the English were apparently working harder than their neighbors. The ancien règime in France is reported to have guaranteed fifty-two Sundays, ninety rest days, and thirty-eight holidays. In Spain, travelers noted that holidays totaled five months per year.[5]

The peasant's free time extended beyond officially sanctioned holidays. There is considerable evidence of what economists call the backward-bending supply curve of labor -- the idea that when wages rise, workers supply less labor. During one period of unusually high wages (the late fourteenth century), many laborers refused to work "by the year or the half year or by any of the usual terms but only by the day." And they worked only as many days as were necessary to earn their customary income -- which in this case amounted to about 120 days a year, for a probable total of only 1,440 hours annually (this estimate assumes a 12-hour day because the days worked were probably during spring, summer and fall). A thirteenth-century estime finds that whole peasant families did not put in more than 150 days per year on their land. Manorial records from fourteenth-century England indicate an extremely short working year -- 175 days -- for servile laborers. Later evidence for farmer-miners, a group with control over their worktime, indicates they worked only 180 days a year.

Om ikke det er nok finner man også basisen i følgende kilder:

[1] James E. Thorold Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (London: Allen and Unwin, 1949), 542-43.

[2] H.S. Bennett, Life on the English Manor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 104-6.

[3] Douglas Knoop and G.P. Jones, The Medieval Mason (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967), 105.

[4] R. Allen Brown, H.M. Colvin, and A.J. Taylor, The History of the King's Works, vol. I, the Middle Ages (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1963).

[5] Edith Rodgers, Discussion of Holidays in the Later Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), 10-11. See also C.R. Cheney, "Rules for the observance of feast-days in medieval England", Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 34, 90, 117-29 (1961).

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Juliet_Schor

Juliet Schor is a Professor of sociology . She studies trends in working time and leisure, consumerism, the relationship between work and family, women's issues and economic justice. She received her undergraduate degree from Wesleyan University and her Ph.D in economics from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Before joining Boston College, she taught at Harvard University for 17 years, in the Department of Economics and the Committee on Degrees in Women's Studies.

Hvor tdlig middelalder er det egentlig du sikter til?

På det lykkelige 1700-tallet gjaldt flgende for forventet levealder:

For eksempel var dødeligheten blant 10 til 15-åringer 200 ganger høyere enn den er i dag. Forventet levealder lignet mer på sjimpanser enn moderne mennesker. Folk hadde samme risiko for å dø som 30-åringer som vi har som 72-åringer.

Under industrialiseringen, iallfall i dens første faser, var arbeidstiden overalt svært lang (12–14 timer eller mer, inklusive de nødvendige spisepauser). Men for mange som kom fra gårdsarbeid eller håndverk, betydde selv dette et fremskritt i forhold til den helt uavgrensede arbeidstiden de hadde hatt før.

Er det dit du vil?

Endret 24. februar 2013 av Montefalco

[AnonymBruker]

Kanskje fordi man lærer litt om man studerer historie samt prater med historikere, arkeologer og forskere. Det er nok heller du som er kraftig missinformert og lever på vedtatte løgner og lekmanns manglende kunnskap.

Påstanden din begynte med "Helt siden middelalderen og til idag...". Den er feil uansett om alle levde som konger i middelalderen. Den ignorerer at man vil ha bedre bostandard enn gjennomsnittspersonen i middelalderen selv om man bor i en campingvogn på en campingplass hele året. Den tar heller ikke hensyn til at i en relativt kort periode etter svartedauen var det lettere å dyrke nok mat til alle, siden det var færre personer.

Anonym poster: 1b966fb2412917c48da8a18626e2070e