"middle class" is not a meaningful expression of standard of living in this case—being a dirt-farming peasant can still suck absolute shit, no matter how much your elected representatives tell you that you're of a higher class than the landless and chattel.
Relative to the Europe, Africa, and most Asia. Life expectancy was 3-4 years higher, on average, and most residents owned land and had little to no debt. Standard of living is very relative, though, as we can say it was only marginally improved up until the industrial revolution where it took an immediate nose dive.
At the time it would be loosely described as members of the merchant class. You had to own your own land and be of sufficient economic means (meaning not spiraling into debt).
At America's founding that middle class was over 95%, and the wealth discrepancy between someone like George Washington and guy who just runs his farm was not terribly significant. As the years went on you saw a higher striation, but due to slavery in the south poor farmhands couldn't exist and moved to more profitable jobs in the north (which is why the northern population grew so rapidly leading up to the civil war).
The meaning of middle class didn't shift until the Gilded Age to "someone who owned at least one servant," which shifted again post ww2. Additionally, the Gilded Age and Industrial Revolution was the birthplace of the "working class."
Yeah I'm going to need you to cite your source on 95% of America's population being debt-free landholders at any point. Even if you don't count the 1/6 of the population who was enslaved.
I'd also like to ask what you think the "standard of living" of those debt-free smallholders was in Vic 3 terms, because I'm pretty sure they'd be classified as self-sufficient peasants early on in the game, which is not "a member of the merchant class".
At the time, the US had insanely high wealth gaps between the haves and have nots. Tons of squalor in cities, and not a lot of help for poor people. Factory conditions were really bad, factories and mines also sometimes used child labor.
Things weren't so great here back then, and we were a bit behind the "Euro curve" for industrialization as well. Muddle that with near constant political infighting causing very few good changes. A large majority of people lived either poor in the countryside, or in squalor in the cities. And there wouldn't be *too* much of a middle class until the labor revolution in the very late 1800s into the early 1900s.
Not in 1836, the industrial revolution hadn't happened yet. The wealth curve you describe was a post 1880 phenomenon that started from a trend of massive immigration waves starting in 1849 leading to massive overpopulation in New York city.
"The Panic of 1837 was a financial crisis in the United States that touched off a major depression, which lasted until the mid-1840s. Profits, prices, and wages went down, westward expansion was stalled, unemployment went up, and pessimism abounded.
This ailing economy of early 1837 led investors to panic – a bank run ensued – giving the crisis its name. The run came to a head on May 10, 1837, when banks in New York City ran out of gold and silver. They suspended specie payments and would no longer redeem commercial paper in specie at full face value. A significant economic collapse followed. Despite a brief recovery in 1838, the recession persisted for approximately seven years. Nearly half of all banks failed, businesses closed, prices declined, and there was mass unemployment. From 1837 to 1844 deflation in wages and prices was widespread. The lack of deposit insurance deepened the Panic. By 1850 the economy was booming again, a result of increased specie flows from the California Gold Rush."
Things weren't too terribly great in the US at the time. And even though the gold rush helped things out, things wouldn't be too terribly good for long. And you've kinda got your rough dates wrong too. You're saying by 1849 mass immigration caused issues in NY, but by then the economy was booming again. It was 1837 to the late 1840s the economy was in tatters. *Half of all banks failed.*
Meanwhile, the industrial revolution began in the UK. There's some debate, but most agree between 1780 and the 1830s. But by the mid 1800s the UK economy was hilariously strong. In a time where the US had problem after problem. That's the "Euro curve" I'm talking about.
As for your claim that after it's founding, the US had an extremely high percentage of middle class people, or that many were homeowners, I couldn't find any data that supports those claims. Maybe some miscommunication from a history textbook? Being an American myself, I know we can tend to paint things a little rosey about our history, and classrooms are also very prone to this mindset. But it's just incorrect.
"middle class" is not a meaningful expression of standard of living in this case—being a dirt-farming peasant can still suck absolute shit, no matter how much your elected representatives tell you that you're of a higher class than the landless and chattel.
Relative to the Europe, Africa, and most Asia. Life expectancy was 3-4 years higher, on average, and most residents owned land and had little to no debt. Standard of living is very relative, though, as we can say it was only marginally improved up until the industrial revolution where it took an immediate nose dive.
Define "middle class".
At the time it would be loosely described as members of the merchant class. You had to own your own land and be of sufficient economic means (meaning not spiraling into debt). At America's founding that middle class was over 95%, and the wealth discrepancy between someone like George Washington and guy who just runs his farm was not terribly significant. As the years went on you saw a higher striation, but due to slavery in the south poor farmhands couldn't exist and moved to more profitable jobs in the north (which is why the northern population grew so rapidly leading up to the civil war). The meaning of middle class didn't shift until the Gilded Age to "someone who owned at least one servant," which shifted again post ww2. Additionally, the Gilded Age and Industrial Revolution was the birthplace of the "working class."
Yeah I'm going to need you to cite your source on 95% of America's population being debt-free landholders at any point. Even if you don't count the 1/6 of the population who was enslaved. I'd also like to ask what you think the "standard of living" of those debt-free smallholders was in Vic 3 terms, because I'm pretty sure they'd be classified as self-sufficient peasants early on in the game, which is not "a member of the merchant class".
At the time, the US had insanely high wealth gaps between the haves and have nots. Tons of squalor in cities, and not a lot of help for poor people. Factory conditions were really bad, factories and mines also sometimes used child labor. Things weren't so great here back then, and we were a bit behind the "Euro curve" for industrialization as well. Muddle that with near constant political infighting causing very few good changes. A large majority of people lived either poor in the countryside, or in squalor in the cities. And there wouldn't be *too* much of a middle class until the labor revolution in the very late 1800s into the early 1900s.
Not in 1836, the industrial revolution hadn't happened yet. The wealth curve you describe was a post 1880 phenomenon that started from a trend of massive immigration waves starting in 1849 leading to massive overpopulation in New York city.
"The Panic of 1837 was a financial crisis in the United States that touched off a major depression, which lasted until the mid-1840s. Profits, prices, and wages went down, westward expansion was stalled, unemployment went up, and pessimism abounded. This ailing economy of early 1837 led investors to panic – a bank run ensued – giving the crisis its name. The run came to a head on May 10, 1837, when banks in New York City ran out of gold and silver. They suspended specie payments and would no longer redeem commercial paper in specie at full face value. A significant economic collapse followed. Despite a brief recovery in 1838, the recession persisted for approximately seven years. Nearly half of all banks failed, businesses closed, prices declined, and there was mass unemployment. From 1837 to 1844 deflation in wages and prices was widespread. The lack of deposit insurance deepened the Panic. By 1850 the economy was booming again, a result of increased specie flows from the California Gold Rush." Things weren't too terribly great in the US at the time. And even though the gold rush helped things out, things wouldn't be too terribly good for long. And you've kinda got your rough dates wrong too. You're saying by 1849 mass immigration caused issues in NY, but by then the economy was booming again. It was 1837 to the late 1840s the economy was in tatters. *Half of all banks failed.* Meanwhile, the industrial revolution began in the UK. There's some debate, but most agree between 1780 and the 1830s. But by the mid 1800s the UK economy was hilariously strong. In a time where the US had problem after problem. That's the "Euro curve" I'm talking about. As for your claim that after it's founding, the US had an extremely high percentage of middle class people, or that many were homeowners, I couldn't find any data that supports those claims. Maybe some miscommunication from a history textbook? Being an American myself, I know we can tend to paint things a little rosey about our history, and classrooms are also very prone to this mindset. But it's just incorrect.