3 ms·

Care to explain why the comparison is so troublesome, for the ignorant?

by 67726e 10y ago

NhanH 10y ago
Those athletes didn't have access to refrigerator, air conditioning, washing machine or Hacker News in their daily life.
- epicureanideal 10y ago
  But we also can't buy dozens of domestic slaves to act as air conditioner (leaf-waver), washing machine, story teller, and so on. Or have a low population so we don't need air conditioning because we own a villa on a (relatively) sparsely populated Mediterranean coast. Etc.
  - thesmok 10y ago
    Slaves need food. It doesn't make sense to have slaves for leaf waving and laundry today because machines and electricity are cheaper.
toomanybeersies 10y ago
The relative cost of goods has changed so much over the centuries. For instance, clothing is the cheapest it has ever been, yet housing is relatively more expensive now.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
The bigger problem to me is the number was derived by assuming the modern American military could be equated to the ancient Roman military's expenses: If the charioteer could pay for 1/5 of Rome's annual military expenses, then his modern equivalent could pay for 1/5 of the US' annual military expenses. It wouldn't surprise me if you could build ancient Athens from scratch for the cost of a single modern aircraft carrier. A quick google search shows 140,000 people in ancient Athens and 6000 staff on the biggest aircraft carriers, and it wouldn't surprise me if ancient housing were 23 times cheaper than military-grade ocean housing. Not to mention we have vibrant financial markets and a strong economy. Ancient Rome had unusually strong rent control and price control laws: "The Edict of Maximum Prices was an attempt to control runaway inflation and poverty in the Empire. The penalty for exceeding the prices of the Edict was severe: death. Not satisfied to execute just the seller, Diocletian decreed that the buyer was to be executed as well. As a final measure, if a seller refused to sell his goods at the stated price, the penalty was death." If ancient Rome didn't have corporations, investment banks, revenue bonds, government-backed loans, etc. and had other terrible economic policies like above, then being rich(in terms of buying power for specific goods) wouldn't go as far as in our modern economy.
- landryraccoon 10y ago
  That doesn't seem so bad. It would be valid to say that the top charioteer's share of the total wealth of the world is comparable to someone with $15 billion today. As long as you think of it as wealth relative to peers, the comparison stands. By your logic, inflation adjusted numbers for say, box office hits like Star Wars and Gone with the Wind are meaningless because people couldn't use the money to buy cell phones or laptop computers.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    I hadn't considered that, but it's probably true. A Disney movie turning revenue of $10 million with a sequel is probably more valuable than a no-name company turing revenue of $10 million with a surprise hit. So $10 million isn't even the same amount as $10 million, because the banks or potential investors won't necessarily assume that you could repeat it. Or if you found $100 million in a briefcase and asked Donald Trump to build you a skyscraper, it would go further than if you tried to do it yourself, because he could stick his name on it and get more funding. This doesn't really apply to small amounts of money(less than $1k), because all you can buy there are consumer goods(i.e. commodities). So to a consumer, $50 is as good as any other $50. And cost-of-living estimates for ancient Rome are probably reasonably accurate when translated. I guess what I'm saying is that wealth is dependent on what you can actually do with it. So descriptions like, "The charioteer had enough money to buy a quarter of all the farmland in Rome" is a better description of his wealth than "The charioteer had the equivalent of $x billion in USD", which doesn't convey how he could spend it.
- saalweachter 10y ago
  He was not equating total military expenses, he was equating ordinary soldier's pay. That should be fairly apples-to-apples. The top charioteer, over his career, earned enough to cover all ordinary soldier's pay for 1/5th a year. Using the figure above of 600,000 ordinary soldiers in Rome's army, that equates to 120,000 soldier-years of pay. It's reasonable to treat that number as somewhat of a constant over the last 2000 years. Now, I am a little skeptical that a US soldier makes $125,000 / year. The pay rates I can find online range from $25,000 / year for a newly enlisted soldier to $90,000 / year for an E-9 soldier with 40 years experience. That produces a lifetime earnings for our charioteer of $3-11 billion, depending on what the average pay for a soldier actually comes out to.

Care to explain why the comparison is so troublesome, for the ignorant?

by 67726e 10y ago

Care to explain why the comparison is so troublesome, for the ignorant?

NhanH 10y ago

Those athletes didn't have access to refrigerator, air conditioning, washing machine or Hacker News in their daily life.

epicureanideal 10y ago
But we also can't buy dozens of domestic slaves to act as air conditioner (leaf-waver), washing machine, story teller, and so on. Or have a low population so we don't need air conditioning because we own a villa on a (relatively) sparsely populated Mediterranean coast. Etc.
- thesmok 10y ago
  Slaves need food. It doesn't make sense to have slaves for leaf waving and laundry today because machines and electricity are cheaper.

toomanybeersies 10y ago

The relative cost of goods has changed so much over the centuries. For instance, clothing is the cheapest it has ever been, yet housing is relatively more expensive now.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

The bigger problem to me is the number was derived by assuming the modern American military could be equated to the ancient Roman military's expenses: If the charioteer could pay for 1/5 of Rome's annual military expenses, then his modern equivalent could pay for 1/5 of the US' annual military expenses. It wouldn't surprise me if you could build ancient Athens from scratch for the cost of a single modern aircraft carrier. A quick google search shows 140,000 people in ancient Athens and 6000 staff on the biggest aircraft carriers, and it wouldn't surprise me if ancient housing were 23 times cheaper than military-grade ocean housing. Not to mention we have vibrant financial markets and a strong economy. Ancient Rome had unusually strong rent control and price control laws: "The Edict of Maximum Prices was an attempt to control runaway inflation and poverty in the Empire. The penalty for exceeding the prices of the Edict was severe: death. Not satisfied to execute just the seller, Diocletian decreed that the buyer was to be executed as well. As a final measure, if a seller refused to sell his goods at the stated price, the penalty was death." If ancient Rome didn't have corporations, investment banks, revenue bonds, government-backed loans, etc. and had other terrible economic policies like above, then being rich(in terms of buying power for specific goods) wouldn't go as far as in our modern economy.

landryraccoon 10y ago
That doesn't seem so bad. It would be valid to say that the top charioteer's share of the total wealth of the world is comparable to someone with $15 billion today. As long as you think of it as wealth relative to peers, the comparison stands. By your logic, inflation adjusted numbers for say, box office hits like Star Wars and Gone with the Wind are meaningless because people couldn't use the money to buy cell phones or laptop computers.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  I hadn't considered that, but it's probably true. A Disney movie turning revenue of $10 million with a sequel is probably more valuable than a no-name company turing revenue of $10 million with a surprise hit. So $10 million isn't even the same amount as $10 million, because the banks or potential investors won't necessarily assume that you could repeat it. Or if you found $100 million in a briefcase and asked Donald Trump to build you a skyscraper, it would go further than if you tried to do it yourself, because he could stick his name on it and get more funding. This doesn't really apply to small amounts of money(less than $1k), because all you can buy there are consumer goods(i.e. commodities). So to a consumer, $50 is as good as any other $50. And cost-of-living estimates for ancient Rome are probably reasonably accurate when translated. I guess what I'm saying is that wealth is dependent on what you can actually do with it. So descriptions like, "The charioteer had enough money to buy a quarter of all the farmland in Rome" is a better description of his wealth than "The charioteer had the equivalent of $x billion in USD", which doesn't convey how he could spend it.
saalweachter 10y ago
He was not equating total military expenses, he was equating ordinary soldier's pay. That should be fairly apples-to-apples. The top charioteer, over his career, earned enough to cover all ordinary soldier's pay for 1/5th a year. Using the figure above of 600,000 ordinary soldiers in Rome's army, that equates to 120,000 soldier-years of pay. It's reasonable to treat that number as somewhat of a constant over the last 2000 years. Now, I am a little skeptical that a US soldier makes $125,000 / year. The pay rates I can find online range from $25,000 / year for a newly enlisted soldier to $90,000 / year for an E-9 soldier with 40 years experience. That produces a lifetime earnings for our charioteer of $3-11 billion, depending on what the average pay for a soldier actually comes out to.