And supposing the greedy, selfish, abusive people are the only ones who'll give you a job?
Employment was quite scarce in the Victorian era and in some ways Bob was quite lucky to have found an indoor clerical job at all.
Also, bear in mind that the prevailing attitude at the time was that one had to be grateful and loyal to one's employer; there was a status difference that was, in effect, not dissimilar to the dynamic between master and servant. What you're proposing is a fairly consumerist approach to employment which, again, relies on being in a position to choose.
If one's adding an extra four hours per day onto one's work day (bearing in mind that working-class Victorians tended to be toiling for 65 - 80 hours a week) in travelling time seems to largely negate the benefit of finding a better-paying employer.
Because he would need time to look for another potential employer, speak to them or give them a letter and be interviewed or assessed in some way.
Yep. Rather like how VC was implying that only the threat of actual starvation will make poor people 'saddle up' and find jobs.
Dickens makes it abundantly clear that philanthropy at the time couldn't possibly have helped everybody who needed help. Nor could it if welfare were abolished tomorrow.
Classy as ever, Lighthouse. Are you this obnoxious in real life, out of interest?
How can you possibly get two jobs when you're working 65 - 80 hours a week and are making your wife and children work as well? You'd die within months, especially considering the conditions in which the poor at the time lived.
And are you saying, then, that you'd totally remove all forms of welfare then 'solve' the problem of inadequately provided-for children by taking them away and giving them to someone else? Would it be the government that did this?
One's stance on the Christian faith and the celebration of holidays has nothing to do with right- and left-wing politics. Furthermore, most liberals in the West
do celebrate Christmas, just like most conservatives.
lain:
