- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Victorian Poor Farm or Poor House
Posted on 8/20/25 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 8/20/25 at 3:49 pm
NYC's Mayor Koch proposed something of a similar concept back in his day, but that was shot down quickly.
quote:
Purpose and Admission: Poor farms were intended to house and support the poorest members of society—orphans, widows, the elderly, disabled, or unemployed—while discouraging reliance on public aid by imposing strict, often harsh conditions. Individuals or families entered voluntarily or were sent by local authorities when they could no longer support themselves. Admission often required proving destitution, and in some cases, individuals had to surrender personal belongings or rights.
Work Requirement: Inmates (as residents were often called) were expected to work in exchange for their keep, based on the principle that idleness caused poverty. Labor varied by region and institution but included agricultural work (farming, tending livestock), domestic tasks (cooking, cleaning, sewing), or industrial activities (like breaking stones or making goods). The work was often grueling, monotonous, and designed to deter able-bodied people from seeking relief unless absolutely necessary.
4
Posted on 8/20/25 at 3:55 pm to Auburn1968
“Poor house”= where my dad said we would end up whenever I wanted something as a kid
Posted on 8/20/25 at 3:57 pm to Auburn1968
Seems like it was only marginally effective back then… 
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:01 pm to Auburn1968
And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:28 pm to dirtsandwich
quote:
And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
Those that are off should go there…
Did I get the line right? Lol
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:34 pm to Auburn1968
The concept is a little confusing. If you're willing and able to do "grueling, monotonous" work why not just get a job?
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:45 pm to JEC119
I could have sworn he used poorhouses but apparently not. Maybe in one of the movie adaptations.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:21 pm to dirtsandwich
quote:
I could have sworn he used poorhouses but apparently not. Maybe in one of the movie adaptations.
I watch the 1938 version and he says work houses in that one.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:31 pm to northshorebamaman
A lot of people are able, just not willing
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:40 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:Yet according to this apparently they were since it says many applied for admission, had to actually prove they were destitute, and even gave up their possessions to gain entrance. All just to work grueling jobs for room and board. That sounds pretty fricking willing to me.
A lot of people are able, just not willing
Again, why wouldn't that person just get a job, keep their possessions, and get paid in actual money? Something is missing here.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:43 pm to northshorebamaman
I'm talking about now, but then
We have too many able-bodied sitting on the couch.
We have too many able-bodied sitting on the couch.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:51 pm to northshorebamaman
You’re taking too modern of an approach. Just because you wanted a job doesn’t mean someone would give you a job. Free labor wasn’t quite as dynamic as it is now.
It was a time you truly would be marginalized
It was a time you truly would be marginalized
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:52 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:Then the same question applies: given the two options, why would someone [now] choose to give up their possessions and do grueling physical work in prison camp conditions over getting a job and getting paid?
I'm talking about now,
I'm not talking about the ones that were/would now be involuntarily committed. I am questioning specifically why anyone would choose to do this.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:53 pm to northshorebamaman
They don't get jobs because we're paying them to sit on their asses.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:54 pm to athenslife101
quote:You're probably right. This makes no sense today.
You’re taking too modern of an approach. Just because you wanted a job doesn’t mean someone would give you a job. Free labor wasn’t quite as dynamic as it is now.
It was a time you truly would be marginalized
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:57 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:That has nothing to do with my question. Again: given the two options, why would someone [now] choose to give up their possessions and do grueling physical work in prison camp conditions over getting a job and getting paid?
They don't get jobs because we're paying them to sit on their asses.
I'm not talking about the ones that were/would now be involuntarily committed. I am questioning specifically why anyone would choose to do this.
This post was edited on 8/20/25 at 5:58 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News