Claim: Bob Cratchit’s 15 shillings/week ≈ $14/hour today, higher than US federal minimum wage
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Experts and fact-checkers find the simple claim — “Bob Cratchit’s 15 shillings/week ≈ $14/hour today, higher than US federal minimum wage” — is misleading because conversions depend on method and assumed hours. MeasuringWorth’s relative‑earnings approach translates 15 shillings in 1843 to about £611.30/week or roughly $43,000/year (≈ $21.44/hr on a 40‑hour basis) while other calculations that use price inflation or 60‑hour workweeks give much lower hourly equivalents (about $13.50–$14.20 or below) [1] [2] [3]. Multiple reporters and scholars emphasize there is no single “correct” conversion and that Cratchit was not the poorest class in Victorian London [4] [3].
1. Why the math varies: different comparators, different answers
Historians and economists use at least two broad methods to convert 1843 wages: price‑inflation (what the same basket of goods costs today) and relative labour‑earnings (what a worker paid like Cratchit would earn today). MeasuringWorth’s relative‑earnings index gives 15 shillings a week a modern equivalent of about £611.30/week or roughly £32,000/year — which MeasuringWorth converts to about $43,000/year and to roughly $21.44/hour on a 40‑hour baseline [1] [2]. By contrast, price‑based “real wage” calculations give far smaller weekly equivalents (for example, a retail CPI style conversion that yields around £75.28/week, which translates to pennies per hour if divided across long Victorian workweeks) [1] [2].
2. Hours worked matter: 40 vs. 60 hour assumptions change the headline
Many viral comparisons implicitly assume a modern 40‑hour workweek; that boosts an hourly rate. MeasuringWorth and some commentators calculate Cratchit’s modern equivalent on a 40‑hour year (2,000 hours) and arrive at about $21.44/hour [2]. But Dickens’ era clerks commonly worked far longer—Victorian workweeks of around 60 hours are used by other analysts and fact‑checkers, which reduces the hourly figure to the low teens or below (USA TODAY and Lead Stories cite ~60‑hour assumptions and derive roughly $14.20/hr or about $13.50/hr depending on method) [3] [5].
3. Different purposes: price of goods vs. relative social position
Experts warn the choice of conversion should match the question. If you ask “Could the Cratchits buy the same basket of goods today?” price‑based conversion (CPI) is relevant and produces a low dollar equivalent that understates wages; if you ask “Where would a clerk sit in today’s labour market?” relative‑earnings conversion is more apt and gives a higher number [1] [2]. Samuel Williamson of MeasuringWorth argues Cratchit’s pay, by relative earnings, would place him far above the U.S. federal minimum [4] [2].
4. What fact‑checkers concluded about the viral $13.50–$14 claim
Fact‑check outlets and reporting find parts of the viral tweet are partially true but overreaching. USA TODAY says using wage‑inflation yields about $43,000/year or $14.20/hour assuming a 60‑hour week, and therefore it’s true he’d earn more than the federal $7.25/hr — but also notes Cratchit wasn’t destitute in his context [3]. Lead Stories and others stress conversion uncertainty and point out other reasonable methods put him below modern federal minimums if you use different assumptions [5] [6].
5. Historical context: Cratchit’s social status in Victorian London
Scholars tell reporters that Cratchit is portrayed as a struggling family man but not the very poorest of Victorian London; manual laborers often earned less (about 8 shillings/week), and clerks had higher social standing and literacy. That means using Cratchit as a straightforward analogue for modern minimum‑wage workers misframes Dickens’ social commentary [3] [4] [7].
6. Bottom line for the claim: partly true but oversimplified
Available sources do not support a single, definitive “$14/hour today” number without specifying method and workweek. Depending on accepted conversion method and whether you assume 40 or 60 hours, Cratchit’s modern equivalent ranges from well below to well above $14/hr: MeasuringWorth’s relative‑earnings method supports ~$21.44/hr on a 40‑hour basis [2], while price‑based or 60‑hour computations yield figures near $13.50–$14.20 or lower [3] [5]. Claiming a single figure without noting method is misleading [4] [7].
Limitations and note on agendas: MeasuringWorth’s work emphasizes labour‑earnings and produces the higher, pro‑worker comparison [1] [2]; fact‑checkers emphasize the calculation’s sensitivity and caution against viral simplicity [3] [5]. Readers seeking to argue policy comparisons should say which conversion and hours they use and acknowledge that Dickens’ fictional clerk is not a literal modern minimum‑wage analogue [4] [7].