People here are whining about the similarities with the 1929 Depression and ignoring the Panic of 1837 as well as the Panic of 1873 and the follow-on six-year Long Depression. If only the situation were as rosy. We're not looking at 1929, we're staring down the barrel of 1129. We aren't even at the level of Dark Ages serfs, much less peasants. Follow me for a bit of history...
Or just scroll down to the bottom for a link to the latest outrage. It shouldn't happen (if you'll excuse the expression) to a dog!
In order to understand this comparison you have to understand life in the Dark Ages and Medieval periods. I'll be brief. You had your kings at the top. They had their money and armies via the dukedoms, duchies and lordships they handed out. You could get a chunk of land as long as you paid taxes and provided warriors whenever there was a war going on. As a Duke or Lord you came up with this money and manpower from the poor bastards who actually planted the food and raised the livestock on the land you'd been granted. You took their goods and taxed the hell out of them and made them spend hours each week in combat training so that along with the bishops, knights and rooks, there were enough pawns on the battlefield to absorb more arrows and sword blows than the other side could dish out.
But the time period wasn't quite as bleak as it seems to be at first glance. In order to explain why I have to explain a few other things like life at the bottom. There was a difference between serfs and peasants, for example. A serf was bound to a manor, not as a slave but close. They could buy their freedom but it was rather difficult to earn enough money to do so. Their jobs were assigned and they did what they were assigned to do. If the manor was sold or reassigned the serfs were a part of the package. They had many jobs, from craftsmen and bakers to farmers and tax collectors.
The peasants, on the other hand, were free to leave if they wished. But why would they? Besides the wars everywhere you looked there was the prospect of being tied to a manor and a really bad lord of that manor. Better to stick around, work the land, maybe make goods and pay off the tithes and taxes for the protection offered by the manor they were able to choose. If you were really lucky (and male) your parents would pay for you to be sent off to the Church to learn to read and write and live life as a monk or possibly pastor.
We don't know nearly as much as we'd like to about peasants because, being peasants, they didn't leave behind a lot of records. But there are a lot of records from the summer of 1381 as a whole lot of peasants around London revolted, demanding liberty, equality and brotherhood 400 years before any Frenchman thought to riot for such ideals. They beheaded (and displayed the results thereof on poles) the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Treasurer. They stormed London and killed lots of Flemish people for reasons lost to history.
Their actions, far from being insane, were considered and tactical. They targeted lawyers and court officials. People who couldn't read and write managed to amass as a group and attack exactly those things that were hurting them most: records of servitude. But how did a bunch of simple peasants manage such a feat, a coordinated and wholly unexpected attack on the capital forcing an audience with the king?
Life for peasants wasn't nearly as bad as we envision it. It wasn't anything like we envision. The lords and dukes were normally off leading their warriors as required by their own regal servitude and required peasants who could look after themselves and organise things. And organise they did. We know a lot about how they handled things because in the village of Laxton in Nottinghamshire there's still a court run today exactly as it was 600 years ago, and there's a paper trail to prove it.
Borders and disputes are dealt with by tradition, consensus and judgment from elders who may take advice from the learned and village elders. Court is held when necessary and through such a system, those involved become familiar with the law in much the same way as lifers who are otherwise rotting in American prisons. These people were able to use that expertise to their own ends.
--
Weird British history:
In 1200, King John planned a trip to Nottingham. The people of Gotham realised that his travel route would bring the king through their village, making the street a "King's Highway" and subjecting them to additional taxes. Back in the day, Teh Krazy was thought to be contagious and so to prevent the king from coming into town, everyone in Gotham acted like a madman when the Royal Scouts stopped by ahead of time. King John changed his route. Compare and contrast with the Secret Service and any presidential stop-over.
--
Back to the peasants and their payments. They had to pay the lord of the manor with a certain number of days' labour known as "Feudal Burden". In the worst case they'd have to sacrifice 50 to 60 days' labour to pay their accommodation and taxes. That's not nearly as bad as the sort of slavery we think about when we consider the lives of peasants. But things get worse. For us, if we think about it.
Because, you see, today as free men and women, we pay at least 80 days' labour to cover rent and tax. And there's no health care in that equation except in some European countries. That's a good month longer slaving for our lords than the medieval peasants had to withstand, and the lord was expected to provide for the safety of these peasants.
The medieval system was also a two-way street. The lord also had responsibilities to his peasants. He didn't just allow them use of "his" lands, he was required to lay on feasts at least twice a year. You ever had a tax collector take you out for a nice 3-star dinner at the Fat Duck? Me neither.
Peasants actually had rather nice digs, homes could be shared (like college students), were heated and waterproofed, and central to their working life. They had medical treatment and their diet was such that their teeth, while covered in plaque, were covered in plaque. On the other hand, women in Wales were able to divorce on grounds of halitosis. And as I wrote before, peasants could advance if they could get knowledge. Like William of Wyckham, born a peasant, who became one of the richest and most powerful men in England. He founded a school which to this day offers scholarships to the poor. His motto still stands over pupils: Aut disce, aut discede, manet sors tertia caedi ("Either learn or go, or the third choice: be beaten").
Peasants weren't so much interested in reading to read the day's version of a good Grisham novel. They wanted to understand enough that they could understand references to themselves. The wanted to understand the law and hold their masters to it. They felt a need to know that what they were being told was how things actually were. And with that I'm back to the modern age.
Because peasants didn't get armour. They didn't actually do much fighting except when their own villages were being raided and even then only when it was a force which was worse than their own lords (rare). The knights and lords and dukes and such would do the actual fighting. And they had to pay for their own armour, the real reason for the imperitive wins on the Tournament Days: you'd get everything you wanted from your defeated opponent, from his armour and even underwear to his horse.
But not the peasants. They stood alone, trying to protect their little patch of scrubland in order to eat this year and live through to the next. But today? It appears we demand our pawns pay for their own armour. And uniforms. And even ammunition. And if they can't pay for what was expended, lost or damaged in their valiant fight against the enemy, they fall to serfdom, forced to remain on the battlefield for a pittance a day in order to repay the costs their lords incurred.
Not even 12th century serfs were required to compensate their lords for damaged materiel. I hang my head in shame.