Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Education & ReferenceHomework Help · 10 years ago

How did the middle and upper classes in the Victorian period?

explain why they were more economically successful than the working class

Update:

80is may u please help me with these two also..

# In what ways did the settlement house movement prepare the way for progressive reform in the early twentieth century?

# Why did Theodore Dreiser's Sister Carrie shock guardians of genteel culture in the Victorian Age?

I will best answer u

4 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Nouveau riche (French for "new rich"), or new money, refers to a person who has acquired considerable wealth within his or her generation.[1] This term is generally to emphasize that the individual was previously part of a lower socioeconomic rank, and that such wealth has provided the means for the acquisition of goods or luxuries that were previously unobtainable. The term can also be used in a derogatory fashion, for the purposes of social class distinction, to describe persons with new found wealth as lacking the experience or finesse to use wealth in the same manner as old money—persons from families who have been wealthy for multiple generations.

    The simple answer is about inheritance. That the rich inherited land and title and the poor inherited only more suffering. The idea of nouveau riche and the struggle within the ranks of the affluent is not modern. According to David Gill, animosity between old inherited wealth and the appropriators of new wealth is often traced as far back as ancient Greece.[2] Theognis, a sixth century B.C. aristocratic poet, wrote how “In former days, there was a tribe who knew no laws nor manners…These men are nobles, now, the gentlemen of old are now the trash.”[3] This Greek poet wrote these words during a time in Greece, when money and economic growth in relation to trade gave rise to high class proprietors.

    Source(s): Wiki et al
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    The upper class owned the means of production like the mines and factories, banks, merchant ships and trains.

    The lower class worked for wages in those factories and mines under cruel conditions with little home comfort, poor health and lots of insecurity. Too many poor people left the country side to work for wages creating an overpopulation in the slums. Families had too many children in the hope that more hands meant more opportunities for employment.

  • alpern
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    type isn't incredibly a lot the money you earn or what you could handle to pay for to purchase, it is not pertaining to to the type of activity you have the two. those could be aspects on your type yet different aspects alongside with the type you behave can regulate your type too. working example i does not positioned a Premiership footballer interior the comparable type as say Tara Palmer-Tompkinson. they'd have comparable quantities of money yet behave thoroughly otherwise to a minimum of one yet another. you have gotten a tycoon being classed as working quite with the Lottery in recent times. So type won't be able to truly be defined, it consists of your activity, wealth, behaviour, manners, education and your outlook on existence.

  • 10 years ago

    they're are a lineage of royalty that from the past depended on their family business for the money. all in all they were the major CEO's of the working class and that they already had money established for them from the past generation. Its a matter of keep a family name and honor type of thing that drives those people.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.