• havokdj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      8 months ago

      You only worked for a LORD for 150 days of the year.

      You still had to provide for yourself from scratch outside of that. Work today may be shit, but it wasn’t that shit.

      • s_s@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Also, there was 3-4 months where nothing grew.

        So it was normal to work everyday, all-day, for long stretches, and then do little in the winter other than try and stay warm.

        • Senshi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          8 months ago

          Winter was still spent productively. Hunting/trapping/fishing/livestock all need handling. Farm land needs preparing, wood needs to get chopped. It was also a time to create & repair tools and housing or work on side hustles such as processing raw materials in a low level artisanal way ( e.g. weaving / fabric spinning ).

          • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yes, very true. And let’s not forget that child rearing and elder care also had to be provided by the family, which usually all lived under one roof. Public schools are a relatively recent development too, during the Middle Ages schools only provided education in Latin for people to become clergy (hence the term grammar school.

            The notion that we have it worse than Medieval peasants is absolutely ridiculous.

          • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Well, I really want to try AND blow up the planet because…

            “we regularly demand of people that they suppress or deny the most effective way they have of situating themselves socially in the world”—their language (Lippi-Green 2011, p. 63). Institutional function often depends on a particular set of beliefs about how language, especially the standard language, works. Lippi-Green and others refer to this set of beliefs as the standard language ideology, defined as “a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogeneous spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant bloc institutions and which names as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle class” (Lippi-Green 2011, p. 64; see also Agha 2007).

            https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011659

              • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                That’s fine. As long as language is living and evolving there will be people sitting on their porches shaking their canes at it and yelling about how it was “better in my day!” Some people are this way because they haven’t yet been made aware that it’s racist, classist and elitist. Some people embrace that.

                  • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    You knew exactly what the person meant who said “try and.” There was no issue of effective communication. You had a problem that they were, in causal, online forum, written speech, not using the preferred phrasing of upper middle class white people.

                    Plenty of authors and editors have gotten the memo on this issue. It’s ok that you’re holding on to the past, it is the way of things.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Half your labour value being taken by your employer for their own benefit? I wouldn’t rush to say they take less now - that’ll vary by role, but I know that last time I had a billable rate, it was ~7x my salary - the rough equivalent of working 319 days for my lords.

        • havokdj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Back then, you worked for the state essentially for free.

          You were also not working 8 hour days, you were working basically from sun up to down, you also had to work if you were sick unless you were so sick that you were bedridden.

          And remember how I said that you basically had to work outside of that? That means you had to run shops, grow and maintain your own food, etc.

          What I’m getting at is that this was not work that provided living for you, you still had to pay taxes after this as well. This applied to basically everyone except for nobles.

          • dreugeworst@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s very much not true. Workdays would typically last around 6 hours, not including multiple breaks during the day. Also, your employer would usually provide the food for lunch, and it was acceptable to have a nap in the afternoon.

            In winter, even shorter days were common to account for the reduction in daylight. If you were ill, you’d simply not show up and not get paid. In fact it was normal for people to only work for what they needed in the immediate future and stop showing up as soon as they had enough for the week