Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 4 down vote favorite

According to the Wikipedia article Ordinance of Labourers 1349

During this outbreak [of Black Death], an estimated 30-40% of the population died. The decline in population left surviving workers in great demand in the agricultural economy of Britain.

Landowners had to face the choice of raising wages to compete for workers or letting their lands go unused. Wages for labourers rose and translated into inflation across the economy as goods became more expensive to produce. The wealthy elites suffered under the sudden economic shift. Difficulties in hiring labour created frustration. John Gower commented on post-plague labourers: "they are sluggish, they are scarce, and they are grasping. For the very little they do they demand the highest pay."

If the number of labourers and landowners was reduced by the same factor, it could only improve the life quality of everyone since more land was available per person. The only scenario I can conceive of which would be disadvantageous for the nobility, is that they were hit less hard by the plague than the workers. Thus there would be less workers per noble, which would be advantageous for the former and disadvantageous for the later. Is that indeed the case? If so, why were the nobles spared?

share|improve this question
Just a guess: Every piece of land belonged to someone. Every landowner wanted every piece of his land to be cultivated. Thus what mattered was the total amount of land, which hadn't changed, not the total amount of its owners. – Lev Oct 14 '11 at 18:10
Your question answers itself really. (And @Lev clarifies well.) Fewer labourers means demand for the few labourers increases, and thus so does their ability to charge more. Inflation just creates a positive-feedback cycle as the labourers need more money just to survive. – Noldorin Oct 14 '11 at 20:03
@Lev: so the landowners paid more for the labourers to work harder (cultivate more land / labourer), but they also ripped more benefits (more land / landowner) – Squark Oct 15 '11 at 15:25
@Noldorin: Demand is by definition the number of labourers hired at a given price. This can only decrease since there are less consumbers. This quantity doesn't depend on the number of labourers – Squark Oct 15 '11 at 15:30
I hypothesize that they considered it obvious that all land should be cultivated, even if it didn't pay. – Lev Oct 15 '11 at 15:31
show 2 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote

Inflation has been defined as "too much money chasing too few goods," or in this case, "too few people."

The supply of money, M, was fixed by the number of coins in circulation, which in turn was limited by the amount of available precious metals. When one third of the population, P, died off suddenly, the former relation of M to P became M/(2/3 P), meaning there was 50% more money in circulation per person. If people had formerly been fully employed in producing goods, G, that would also change the relationship of M/G to M/(2/3 G), again, 50% more M per good. That's why goods and wages would rise about 50% in monetary terms. They probably rose less in "real" terms (after the resulting inflation).

The nobles complained because they had most of the money (and most of the land). With a sudden shortage of labor, the nobles' land and money didn't go as far, causing "inflation." The laborers prospered, but few of them could read or write, so we don't hear their side of the story.

share|improve this answer
Nominal inflation makes sense, but I still don't understand why the nobles were complaining. Since there were less nobles, each of them had more land and more money, which should completely offset the other effect. – Squark Oct 15 '11 at 15:23
@Squark: In theory, if one third of the population dies off, the rest should be 50% richer (on average). That is called the "income effect" in economics. But because of the changing MIX, the laborers' remuneration increased by MORE than 50% (almost double), and the nobles by less than 50%. This is called the substitution effect. So the nobles were RELATIVELY worse off, even if they were absolutely better off. – Tom Au Oct 15 '11 at 18:16
It's not clear to me why the nobles were relatively worse off (although it is possible). Also, it's not entirely clearly why the relative situation is important – Squark Oct 15 '11 at 20:47

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.