logoalt Hacker News

cafebeen • today at 3:41 PM • 6 replies • view on HN

Seems like an accurate picture of the Victorian elite, but it sounds like they were optimized for rent-seeking from an economy and an empire that others built and worked. That was success "on their own terms," as the article puts it, but not something to emulate.


Replies

graemep • today at 3:58 PM

Depends who you mean by the elite.

The aristocracy, certainly.

The upper middle class (i.e. professional class - I know other countries define these things differently) that provided the administrators were just good at their jobs and worked hard. Leonard Woolf's autobiography is a great insider view. Histories of the period too.

➕ show 1 reply
mike_hearn • today at 4:00 PM

Rent seeking how? As the article says, most government positions were unpaid and to be an MP required paying all your own election expenses out of pocket, which were huge. They did it for the prestige and social rewards, not financial. Landowners were expected to take on government roles, also for free.

➕ show 5 replies
vessenes • today at 3:57 PM

I believe Victorian wealth disparity was on par with today's in America -- perhaps America has slightly more "power law" wealth at the very top of the percentage charts -- but for those in charge of new empires, maybe this article will be very useful and remind them it's better to go party in SF than it is to put in too much time in the office.

➕ show 1 reply
csours • today at 4:25 PM

The first rule of success is to own your definition of success.

➕ show 2 replies
rayiner • today at 4:30 PM

I don’t think that’s a helpful explanation. This period was the age of empires. Why were the Victorian elites so much more successful at it than their counterparts?

➕ show 1 reply
52-6F-62 • today at 3:57 PM

Isn't it exactly how the tech industry largely operates today?