Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
How ‘Downton Abbey’ Shows Income Inequality Doesn’t Matter
How ‘Downton Abbey’ Shows Income Inequality Doesn’t Matter
Apr 26, 2025 12:45 AM

After what seemed to be an interminably long wait, Downton Abbey, a British period drama on PBS, recently returned to America. Many of us who have been hooked on the show for four seasons tune in each Sunday night to watch the new twists in the saga of the Earl and Countess of Grantham, their household, and their servants.

But as with most pop culture artifacts, this series about Victorian England is having a subversive effect on the views of modern Americans. Who would have guessed when the show premiered in the U.S. in 2011 that it would undermine liberal arguments about the significance of e inequality?

Many of those concerned about e inequality, though, don’t quite grasp that fact yet. Indeed, some even think the show proves their point. For example, Brett Arends, a columnist for MarketWatch, recently wrote an article titled, “Inequality worse now than on ‘Downton Abbey’” in which he notes,

A research paper to be presented this week at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading think tank, will confirm that the U.S. today has e as unequal as the England of the Earl of Grantham, Lady Mary, Daisy the kitchen maid and Carson the butler a hundred years ago.

The richest take home a higher share of national e in America today than did the aristocrats and superrich of 1920s England. The poor today take home a smaller share than the butlers, chauffeurs and other working folk did back then.

Peter Lindert, economics professor at the University of California in Davis, and one of the world’s leading experts in measuring e inequality, will be presenting research at the NBER this week, and he shared his thoughts with me by email. “Britain’s Downton Abbey economy of the 1920s,” Lindert says, was slightly “less unequal than…the U.S. today” (emphasis added).

Based on this information, Arends makes the spurious claim that, “Half of our country are just like Daisy the kitchen maid or Thomas the scheming footman a hundred years ago. They basically have nothing.”

Is that true? Do half of American have “basically nothing?” And are half of Americans as unfortunate as Daisy and Thomas?

No, it’s not true. But Arends’ pletely incorrect either.

In 2013, the median annual salary for a man was $35,228 and $22,063 for a woman. Both Thomas and Daisy, who have rather plum jobs for low-skilled workers, actually earn more than the median U.S. worker. Thomas, as a second footman, would have earned an annual salary $37,379.37 (in 2014 dollars). Daisy, as an undercook, would have earned $22,150 a year. (They also received other benefits—such as free room and board—but that would have been offset by having to work 14-16 hour days for 6-7 days a week, so we’ll exclude those from our calculations.)

Daisy and Thomas would be even better off if they decided to get married (we’ll ignore the reason that is unlikely). bined salaries would be, in 2014 dollars, $59,529. Not too shabby for a couple of servants.

Yet Arends concludes they—both the servants and half of America— “basically have nothing.” That’s unlikely to be true for Thomas and Daisy (why couldn’t they save since their living expenses are so low?) and definitely not true for Americans. The median net worth of an American family in 2013 was $81,400. (For young single people like Thomas and Daisy it’s only about $14,1600, but that’s because their American equivalents are usually still in school or moving up on the economic ladder.)

Let’s concede that e inequality in America is roughly the same as it was in Victorian-era England. Let’s also concede that Downtown servants earned wages equal to the median for Americans today. If e inequality is the most important factor, then it shouldn’t matter much whether the average low-skilled worker was flipping burgers in a kitchen at a McDonalds in Dallas or making foie gras in the kitchen at Downtown Abbey. Yet how many modern fast food workers would be willing to trade places with Daisy? Not many, I suspect. Even Daisy wouldn’t make that trade-off.

The reason is because the inequality that matters is consumption inequality. When es to living standards, consumption is significantly more important than e. As The Economist explains,

e inequality is the monly cited measure, primarily because the data on it is the prehensive. However, for the purpose of measuring how inequality affects munity it is also probably the least interesting yardstick of the three.

Consumption inequality, though harder to measure, provides a better proxy of social welfare. This is because people’s living standards depend on the amount of goods and services they consume, rather than the number of dollars in their wage packet.

Even though Daisy makes as much e as a modern day worker, both the quality and quantity of goods and services she can purchase in Victorian England is much less that what we have today. The e inequality may be the same between the two periods, but on the inequality that matters—consumption—Victorian Daisy is much worse off than Modern American Daisy.

Also, fans of Downton know that Daisy isn’t the least bit concerned about e inequality. If Lord Grantham’s e were to fall to the point where his e equaled a kitchen maid, e inequality would be reduced. And yet both Grantham and Daisy would be much worse off; the Grantham’s would be broke and Daisy would be out of a job. (Even uneducated Daisy understood economics better than the average Ivy League trained Occupy Wall Street protestor.)

Arends wrote a second article titled “10 ways ‘Downton Abbey’ servants had it better than you” and says “Daisy has it better than us in so many other ways.” Number one on his list is that Daisy has a job for life: “She works for one of the richest men in England and she knows she’ll be there as long as she wants or needs to be.” That is true, and as she pointed out in the most recent episode, she appreciates that fact. But she also wants options. Sure, she could work in a kitchen the rest of her life but what if she doesn’t want to?

That’s why Daisy is getting tutored in math and history and other topics. She wants to get an education so, in economic terms, she can increase her productivity and increase her ability to move up the social mobility scale. What Daisy cares about is not e inequality but intragenerational social mobility—the ability to a change one’s social position during a person’s lifetime. Daisy wants the opportunity to move up the economic ladder and have some sort of choice in the works she does.

Daisy understands that what truly matters is not the disparity between her pay and the e of the folks living upstairs, but the opportunities she has to improve her own human flourishing. She may be an uneducated kitchen maid, but Daisy is teaching modern Americans that, despite the claims of equality-obsessed economic liberals, e inequality isn’t all that important.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Lord Acton and the Power of the Historian
Looking through my back stacks of periodicals the other day I ran across a review in Books & Culture by David Bebbington, “Macaulay in the Dock,” of a recent biography of Thomas Babington Macaulay. The essay takes its point of departure in Lord Acton’s characterization of Macaulay as “one of the greatest of all writers and masters, although I think him utterly base, contemptible and odious.” As Bebbington writes, “Acton, a towering intellectual of the later 19th century, was at...
Constitutional Cases and the Four Cardinal Virtues
Should virtue be a consideration in judicial decisionmaking? Indiana Law Professor R. George Wright makes an intriguing argument for why the four cardinal virtues could be useful in interpreting constitutional cases: Judges typically decide constitutional cases by referring to one or more legal precedents, rules, tests, principles, doctrines, or policies. This Article mends supplementing this standard approach with fully legitimate and appropriate attention to what many cultures have long recognized as the four basic cardinal virtues of practical wisdom or...
How to Love Liberty More Than a Libertarian Economist
I have a deep and abiding love for liberty—which is why I find myself so often in disagreement with libertarians. Libertarians love liberty too, of course, but they tend to love liberty a bit differently. I love liberty in an earthy, elemental way. I love liberty because I need it—like I need air and food—for human flourishing. In contrast, the libertarians I’ve encountered tend to love liberty primarily as an abstraction. Indeed, the most ideologically consistent libertarians I know seem...
Obamacare’s Religious Rubes
The White House has a plan to mobilize prayer vigils in front of the Supreme Court in defense of Obamacare. It was reported that the administration met with leaders at non-profit organizations and religious officials who support the new health care law. The court takes up the constitutional test of the health care mandate in a couple of weeks. The mandate has now been challenged in 26 states. Cue the same stale big government religious prophets who confuse statism and...
Reagan, Whittaker Chambers, and the Threat to Freedom
Over at the Liberty Law Blog, there is an excellent post titled “Ronald Reagan, Whittaker Chambers, and the Dialogue of Liberty” by Alan Snyder. Snyder delves into the influence Chambers had on Reagan and how their worldviews differed as well. Many conservatives and scholars felt Chambers’ prediction that the West was on the losing side of history in the battle against Marxism collapsed after the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union. For many, the ideas of Chambers...
How to Steal a Bike in New York City
Edmund Burke didn’t really say it, but it still rings true: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. In a test of this maxim, filmmaker Casey Neistat tries to steal his own bike in several locations around New York City and finds that most people do nothing about it—even when it’s done right in front of a police station. I recently spent a couple of days conducting a bike theft experiment, which...
Let’s Change Hearts and Minds (and Laws, Too)
Few clichés are so widespread within the evangelical subculture, says Matthew Lee Anderson, as the notion that our witness must be one of “changing hearts and minds.” In careful hands, the idea is at best ambiguous. At worst it reinforces the sort of interior-oriented individualism that allows for and perpetuates a blissful naivete about how institutions and structures shape our dispositions and thoughts. In less than careful hands, the phrase drives a wedge between law and culture by attempting to...
Italy’s Tax Man Takes Aim at the Vatican
Kishore Jayabalan, the Acton Institute’s Rome office director, was interviewed by the Zenit news agency in an article titled, “Is Taxing the Church a Real Solution for Italy?” In the article, Jayabalan discusses the history of the Italian state and its imposition of property taxes on the Roman Catholic Church’s land holdings, residences and non-profit businesses. Sometimes in the past, particularly under Napoleonic rule and before the Lateran Pacts, the institution of property tax was often a subject of state...
Integral Human Development
The Journal of Markets & Morality is planning a theme issue for the Spring of 2013: “Integral Human Development,” i.e. the synthesis of human freedom and responsibility necessary for the material and spiritual enrichment of human life. According to Pope Benedict XVI, Integral human development presupposes the responsible freedom of the individual and of peoples: no structure can guarantee this development over and above human responsibility. (Caritas in Veritate 17) There is a delicate balance between the material and the...
Is Work a Curse?
Is work a curse, a result of mankind’s fall from grace? Not according to the Book of Genesis. As Hugh Whelchel, Executive Director of the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, explains, what Adam was called to do in the garden is what we are still called to do in our work today: Humanity was created by God to cultivate and keep God’s creation, which included developing it and protecting it. You see, we were created to be stewards of...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved