Charity in the 19th century

[chris3]

Charity in the 19^th century

I recently found myself in a conversation on Facebook on the issue on the issue of volunteerism.  The argument goes that during the Victorian period the rich just got richer and let the poor starve with a few exceptions. I have heard arguments from Milton Friedman and Stephan Molenueux that this is in fact not the case.  I have looked for some sort quantitative comparison between the 19^th and 20^th centuries but not had much luck.  

I would really like some figures or references to support or deny the claims of Friedman in this video.

 

[luxfelix]

It might help to look at how many libraries were built by Andrew Carnegie (or other public buildings by the industrialists of the age) as more prominent examples, while also looking up how homesteading societies (travelling into the wild west) and the early insurance societies helped one another.

[Mister Mister]

The average calorie intake, life expectancy, and many other standards of living went up across the board in the 19th century.  This idea that the rich "let people starve", when starvation was regular until the Industrial Revolution is factually incorrect.

[pperrin]

There are two ways to get rich you can appropriate existing wealth or create new wealth (or combine these two). If you are creating new wealth you have not deprived anyone of anything so cannot be accused of (say) starving people. If you are appropriating existing wealth then whether you are starving people depends on how much you leave them with.

 

The pivate sector tends to create new wealth, the state appropriates existing wealth.

 

So generally new starvation (people have always starved to some extent) is far more likely to be caused by the state than private industry.

[chris3]

I am sorry but I can't help but feel that you mist the gist of my question. I understand how all measures of human well being increased in the 19th century, this is not in question. I am at this point trying to find quantitative data to compare the quantity of philanthropy  between the 19th and 20th centuries. 

 

I would like to find some comparison between charity in the 19th century and the 20th/21st centuries. Carnegie and Rockefeller can be written of as notable exceptions.

[pperrin]

Sorry I don't have figures - but I am not sure they would make sense anyway. What is different between a politician giving away money they control as opposed to a businessman doing so? Taxation simply reduces the wealth private individuals have available to give away - and transfers it to politicians who then have it available to give away.

[shirgall]

A interesting and more recent development is people who are less willing to help the injured.

 

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303127is the research, behind a paywall.

 

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/dont-count-on-strangers-in-a-medical-emergency.html covers it, though, and links to the Cornell announcement at https://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/04/having-medical-emergency-don-t-count-strangers

 

 

In the first study of its kind, Cornell sociologists have found that people who have a medical emergency in a public place can’t necessarily rely on the kindness of strangers. Only 2.5 percent of people, or 1 in 39, got help from strangers before emergency medical personnel arrived...

 

(There's an interesting breakdown by race, too. 1 in 24 would help for whites, 1 in 55 for blacks. Chances of receiving assistance go down in lower income and higher population density locales.)