you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 65 points 11 months ago (5 children)

First off, $27,574 is $13.25 per hour, assuming the standard salary 40 hour weeks or $15.15 assuming hourly employee's standard 35 hour work week. This got me thinking: if kingreggieisreal got simple division wrong, what else did they get wrong...

Keeping in mind that conversion rate records from the time are lacking, from what we can surmise, in 1843 (when this story took place), a week's 15 shillings (£0.75) was worth about £110.90 today ($147.84 US). This would be about £5,766.8 per year ($7,688.76 US), or £2.77 per hour ($3.70 US) assuming 40-hour weeks, or £3.17 per hour ($4.22 US) assuming 35-hour weeks.

I'm not really sure what maths kingreggieisreal is using, but it seems flawed.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I grew up in America and the standard work week is a full 40, so there's that. Can't help you with the inflation adjustments though.

    I'm up at fucking 4am talking about payroll math. Still neurotypical tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Makes me wonder how long ago that was posted on the twitters or whatever. If that post was from some time when the wage/CoL ratio was better, the math almost maths by thinking a shilling is a quarter instead of a nickle.

  • source
  • parent