34

Several questions on this site, and people's common perception, is that the Weasleys are poor.

However, on apparently a single source of income, Arthur Weasley supported a family of nine. (I assume Ginny was born before Charlie and Bill moved out, correct me if I'm wrong).

This is done without relying upon gifts or outside support, because they "make do".

So, are the Weasleys actually poor when comparing income to other, smaller, Wizarding families, or do they just have a sizeable income that's just stretched between too many people right now? (Actually, in the epilogue we see that all the kids are out of the house, and that same income is then split among only two people, Arthur and Molly. Are they still poor?)

Möoz
  • 45,398
  • 37
  • 256
  • 451
  • 6
    I had a few friends whos familys were like this, parents made good money, but it only goes so far with tons of kids. But once the kids move out the parents suddenly start taking vacations all the time, buying new cars, ect. – Himarm Jan 24 '16 at 16:55
  • 11
    There is evidence that they live paycheck to paycheck as it were (empty vault), which supports Arthur supporting them all (just to add support to your question) – Mac Cooper Jan 24 '16 at 16:55
  • 12
    It's common to measure poverty relative to family size (e.g. here). So the Weasleys could very well be "poor" according to such a definition when they're raising lots of kids and not when they aren't, even if Arthur's income doesn't change. – Micah Jan 24 '16 at 16:55
  • 1
    (Also, your assumption about Charlie and Bill is complicated.) – Micah Jan 24 '16 at 16:57
  • @Micah Indeed, poverty levels increase based on family size, for government and economic measure, but when someone is talking about straight income in conversation, that's not usually accounted for. I'm hoping that will be part of an answer. –  Jan 24 '16 at 17:23
  • 7
    Arthur also works in a very disregarded field... it's unlikely that he's paid very well for it, since the wizarding world doesn't really care much about muggle technology... See http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Misuse_of_Muggle_Artefacts_Office#Reputation – Catija Jan 24 '16 at 17:35
  • @Catija I dunno. It's enough for them to get by on, if not much more. Seems sizable. And a job that requires raids and has put him in physical danger seems like it should pay okay. He handles artifacts jinxed during Voldemort's reign on other objects, more than deal with Muggle tech. I have wondered what his salary is like compare to other MoM positions, though. –  Jan 24 '16 at 17:59
  • Well, if British Government salaries are anything like American ones... it's unlikely to be very good. The link does have some pretty good supporting info but I don't know how acceptable the HP wikia is as a source for answers here. – Catija Jan 24 '16 at 18:01
  • I'm pretty sure that at one point The Burrow is described as looking like it's held together by magic, which it likely was. You can't create food from nothing, but if you've already got some you can apparently increase the amount magically, so food costs for nine people aren't necessarily any higher than for one. I'm not sure that being able to support nine people is as indicative of a reasonable income (albeit very stretched) as it would be for a Muggle family. – Anthony Grist Jan 24 '16 at 18:05
  • @AnthonyGrist That's what I hope to find out! –  Jan 24 '16 at 18:15
  • @Micah Perhaps complicated, but not necessarily quite as complicated as that page makes out. They seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Charlie may not necessarily have played Seeker all the way up until his seventh year; he could just have played in his second and third and then decided he didn't want to be on the team anymore, for instance. Or indeed, Gryffindor may not have won the cup(s) since his second or third year even with him on the team—having a good Seeker doesn't necessarily guarantee winning (just ask Bulgaria). – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 24 '16 at 18:41
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet: I agree with everything you say, except for the part where it makes the age question less complicated. – Micah Jan 24 '16 at 22:54
  • @Micah I meant that if Charlie only played in his second and perhaps third year, and RowlingMath was just a year off (he’d be three years older than Percy, not two), then there’s really not much discrepancy left. His last game would have been seven years previously, and the numbers would fit. I’m willing to give RowlingMath a year of leeway in remembering people’s ages. :-) – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 24 '16 at 23:12
  • Yeah, there are certainly ways of making things mostly line up, but none of them are very satisfying. You need to either believe that he quit the team and nobody complained about it while complaining about how Gryffindor hasn't won in a long time, or that everyone who complains about it consistently uses "since" in a literally correct but unnatural sense, or some combination of the two. Which is what makes it complicated: there isn't actually a direct contradiction (which would mean you'd just have to choose some bit of canon to disregard), but it doesn't really fit together well... – Micah Jan 24 '16 at 23:56

1 Answers1

37

The Weasleys are not especially poor. It's just that Arthur works at a comparatively low paying job at the Ministry, and has a huge family to feed. Molly is a housewife and does not add to the income.

As to how poor they are, well, they are helped by not having to feed their children throughout the year. I think, when its just Molly and Arthur at home, they get on fine, even manage to save up some money for the Christmas and summer holidays, when the kids come home.

Summer is an especially hard time because of the need to buy school books and other items for up to five children at a time. As is evidenced in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 4: At Flourish and Blotts

Harry enjoyed the breakneck journey down to the Weasleys’ vault, but felt dreadful, far worse than he had in Knockturn Alley, when it was opened. There was a very small pile of silver Sickles inside, and just one gold Galleon. Mrs.Weasley felt right into the corners before sweeping the whole lot into her bag.

Despite all this, the Weasleys do get along well enough. There is never a case of not having enough food to put on the table. In fact, Mrs. Wealsey is known for her wonderful cooking, always making enough to fill the stomachs of everyone at the table, and then some.

There's also the jackpot that Arthur won in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The Weasleys spent that money to holiday in Egypt. If their financial situation was very tight, there would be no question of blowing the money away on a foreign trip.

ʀᴇᴅ_ᴅᴇᴠɪʟ226
  • 5,434
  • 1
  • 29
  • 39
  • Just to note (as in one of the comments above) that Molly’s cooking skills and the amount of food she makes doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how much money they have. You can increase the amount of food by magic if you have just some, so food needn't be (much) more expensive for nine over the summers than for two (or three in Harry's first year) the rest of the year. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 24 '16 at 18:44
  • 27
    A foreign trip for a family of wizards might not be as expensive as you'd imagine. The biggest expense for normal people travelling to a place like Egypt is just getting there. With any number of cheap/free modes of magical transport available to them, that's not even an issue. Then you've got lodging - but we know they already have a bigger-on-the-inside tent they can just set up anywhere. So really, it's just a matter of food, which is actually considerably cheaper there (relative to an average British income). A trip to Egypt might end up being cheaper for them than staying home... – Darrel Hoffman Jan 24 '16 at 20:06
  • 12
    As for trip to Egypt, that question was asked not long ago and some answers try to provide more psychological explanation of that decision. Other than that, Weasleys are typical media poor family - they are said to be poor, other people treat them as poor but they don't actually face consequences that poor people do in real world. – Mirek Długosz Jan 24 '16 at 20:18
  • 4
    Also bear in mind who called them poor - Draco clearly believed (at the time) that proper pureblood families have major wealth to back up the purity of their lineage. – Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI Jan 24 '16 at 22:22
  • 1
    @Shadur Do we know of any proper pureblood families with as many kids as the Weasleys? –  Jan 24 '16 at 22:56
  • 1
    @CreationEdge Well the Gaunts (Voldemort's family) were properly poor. They were properly pure-blood as well. Yes, they were originally rich. But in HBP we see that the wealth has been squandered over generations and when it came to Marvolo Gaunt and his children, they were living in pretty poor conditions. – ʀᴇᴅ_ᴅᴇᴠɪʟ226 Jan 25 '16 at 07:29
  • @DarrelHoffman The tent we only know from GoF. Maybe they spent some of their lottery win, to purchase this tent for their trip to Egypt. And they simply reused it for the world cup? – Angelo.Hannes Jan 25 '16 at 07:38
  • 2
    @Angelo.Hannes Actually the tent belonged to Perkins, Arthur Weasley's colleague at the Ministry. As Arthur says in GoF, "Doesn't camp much anymore, poor fellow, he's got lumbago." Even in DH, Ron, Hermione and Harry use the same tent, since Perkins' lumbago has got so bad. – ʀᴇᴅ_ᴅᴇᴠɪʟ226 Jan 25 '16 at 07:48
  • 1
    I seem to remember Percy accusing his father of having no ambition, otherwise he could have progressed through the ranks in the Ministry and actually earned a decent living. I think that suggests that Arthur was earning even less than Percy after Percy was only there a short time. That doesn't exactly say how much they earn, but I think it does suggest how modest their income was. – BlackThorn May 23 '17 at 17:06
  • 1
    @TBear I don't think Percy was making more than Arthur at that point of time. But I do get the point you are trying to make and I believe it is valid. I think Percy was climbing the ranks really quickly and he would have been earning more than Arthur in a few years, which led him to make the comment on their financial state during the fight between the two of them. – ʀᴇᴅ_ᴅᴇᴠɪʟ226 Jun 17 '17 at 19:55
  • Well, they shouldn't face the consequences of being poor. That much active magic should permit transfiguring everything they need but food and magic items. – Joshua Oct 31 '18 at 15:37