rich
Yes, the poor people would work for or be slaves for the rich, the poor people were the plebeians and the rich were called the patricians; the equestrians was another of the classes.
they would give out free grain to poor people as part of benefits
living conditions were quite difficult. filth, rats, and fleas caused disease. however, nobles had an easier time keeping clean than the poor because they had servants to scrub and clean their homes.
poor
The Roman state provided free grain for the poor in the city of Rome. This was necessary because the poor would have starved as unemployment and underemployment were a big problems. Not doing so would probably have led to riots. The real drain on the resources of the empire were increasing expenditure of the an ever-growing army and a bureaucracy which was doubled in size by the emperor Diocletian.
No they were poor
Yes, but for the most part it's a matter of relative poverty. Many people from poor countries, such as Moldova, Haiti or Mozambique would be delighted to have the same living standard as the most of the poor in Britain.
Ireland still remained poor even after the pamphlet was written. Most people had to try and make a living from the land.
No they were poor
YES
to have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract
Czar Alexander II freed the serfs in his empire in 1742. While they were freed, they were still very poor and still worked in terrible conditions.
What i would think as a poor city is where there is no money being actually put into the city and where there is hardly any people living in homes....i would give an example like: Liverpool and London.
he had 300,000 dollars
no u couldn't that would make u poor
Ancient Rome was good for living if you were rich. If you were poor you would struggle to survive. There was no welfare except for a free gain dole.
In cities, poor living conditions can be due to a low income in the areas.