4 ms·

Wealth is not the number of pieces of green paper in your pocket. It's the things you have and what you can do with those things. I would much rather be a lower

Wealth is not the number of pieces of green paper in your pocket. It's the things you have and what you can do with those things. I would much rather be a lower middle class person in America today than King Henry hundreds of years ago.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> Wealth is not the number of pieces of green paper in your pocket. It's the things you have and what you can do with those things. While wealth can also be your loved ones, your personal relationships, your experience and memories, the nature and culture of the land etc. As long as we are talking about economics and standards of living this should be defined in a way for which statistically significant numbers can be obtained e.g. the relative purchasing power, or relative employable labor relative to a time. (note that none of these are provided.) Yes, you couldn't 'Skype' in 1916 but I also can't employ Leonardo to draw paintings for a modestly large income as I could in the 16th century. You can't pull historical details out of their centuries and call that a worthwhile comparison because there is no equivalent. A subjective "it's the worst poverty because I'd have to use a rotary phone in 1916" can be your opinion sure, as is "it's poverty to lose my experiences and the significant people in my life to be rich in 1916" - but neither of those do anything to support the title which states: > Most Ordinary Americans in 2016 Are Richer Than Was John D. Rockefeller in 1916 Since the use of the generic 'most ordinary Americans' indeed requires the use a broadly applicable and numerically supportable definition of wealth (if one is to make the argument) rather than a personal one. I would have no objections if the title was "I an ordinary American, am richer today than John D. Rockefeller was in 1916" -- but that's clearly not what it says.
- Natsu 10y ago
  > Wealth can also be your loved ones, your personal relationships, your experience and memories etc. Yes, but I wouldn't see any reason those should be different in the past than now, so we can compare only the difference in material goods. I'd certainly rather be an average person in this day and age than an average person in the stone age and I think most people would as well if they understood what it entailed.
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    > I'd certainly rather be an average person in this day and age than an average person in the stone age and I think most people would as well if they understood what it entailed. As would I, but you simply have no basis to expand this claim into "most people would rather be Joe the Plumber than Augustus" which is what the article author is attempting to do with a hodge-podge of anecdotal rhetoric.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for temperature-controlled housing, so at least personally, I'd rather be able to live in comfort as today than to be a king from ages past. Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar that's supposed to be attractive.
      - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
        > I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for temperature-controlled housing I doubt you would feel this way if you'd never heard of temperature controlled housing - that aside. > Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar that's supposed to be attractive. I'm not at all disputing your particular preference, or mine, or the author's of the article, if you re-read my past comments the argument is the same: the particular preference for modern day-convenience of a single individual over say vast wealth/power != 'most ordinary Americans are richer than J.D. Rockefeller'. Now maybe most ordinary Americans really don't care for the same things you don't care for, maybe for them skype calls and modern health-care (even with the ridiculous US medical bills) is preferable to Rockefeller style wealth; but such a point should be supported with data, not "I think it's preferable so most Americans must also think so." This is terribly shoddy writing with no material (non-subjective) facts provided to support the argument and we should expect better on HN (whether we happen to subjectively nod to the opinion or not is really beside the point).

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> Wealth is not the number of pieces of green paper in your pocket. It's the things you have and what you can do with those things. While wealth can also be your loved ones, your personal relationships, your experience and memories, the nature and culture of the land etc. As long as we are talking about economics and standards of living this should be defined in a way for which statistically significant numbers can be obtained e.g. the relative purchasing power, or relative employable labor relative to a time. (note that none of these are provided.) Yes, you couldn't 'Skype' in 1916 but I also can't employ Leonardo to draw paintings for a modestly large income as I could in the 16th century. You can't pull historical details out of their centuries and call that a worthwhile comparison because there is no equivalent. A subjective "it's the worst poverty because I'd have to use a rotary phone in 1916" can be your opinion sure, as is "it's poverty to lose my experiences and the significant people in my life to be rich in 1916" - but neither of those do anything to support the title which states: > Most Ordinary Americans in 2016 Are Richer Than Was John D. Rockefeller in 1916 Since the use of the generic 'most ordinary Americans' indeed requires the use a broadly applicable and numerically supportable definition of wealth (if one is to make the argument) rather than a personal one. I would have no objections if the title was "I an ordinary American, am richer today than John D. Rockefeller was in 1916" -- but that's clearly not what it says.

Natsu 10y ago
> Wealth can also be your loved ones, your personal relationships, your experience and memories etc. Yes, but I wouldn't see any reason those should be different in the past than now, so we can compare only the difference in material goods. I'd certainly rather be an average person in this day and age than an average person in the stone age and I think most people would as well if they understood what it entailed.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > I'd certainly rather be an average person in this day and age than an average person in the stone age and I think most people would as well if they understood what it entailed. As would I, but you simply have no basis to expand this claim into "most people would rather be Joe the Plumber than Augustus" which is what the article author is attempting to do with a hodge-podge of anecdotal rhetoric.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for temperature-controlled housing, so at least personally, I'd rather be able to live in comfort as today than to be a king from ages past. Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar that's supposed to be attractive.
    - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
      > I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for temperature-controlled housing I doubt you would feel this way if you'd never heard of temperature controlled housing - that aside. > Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar that's supposed to be attractive. I'm not at all disputing your particular preference, or mine, or the author's of the article, if you re-read my past comments the argument is the same: the particular preference for modern day-convenience of a single individual over say vast wealth/power != 'most ordinary Americans are richer than J.D. Rockefeller'. Now maybe most ordinary Americans really don't care for the same things you don't care for, maybe for them skype calls and modern health-care (even with the ridiculous US medical bills) is preferable to Rockefeller style wealth; but such a point should be supported with data, not "I think it's preferable so most Americans must also think so." This is terribly shoddy writing with no material (non-subjective) facts provided to support the argument and we should expect better on HN (whether we happen to subjectively nod to the opinion or not is really beside the point).