The only convincing things here are healthcare advancements (obviously). Meanwhile, the 1916 billionaire can spend 95+% of their waking time in leisure or doin

The only convincing things here are healthcare advancements (obviously). Meanwhile, the 1916 billionaire can spend 95+% of their waking time in leisure or doing things entirely of their choosing, even if raising kids (various staff do the hard and not-intrinsically-rewarding stuff like prepping food, cleaning up their messes, shopping for them, and so on, you just play with them if you like, the drudgery is entirely out of your hands). I'd be lucky to average 25% leisure time over a year (including quality time with kids in that figure). This makes the health thing seem less obviously an unacceptable trade-off that it otherwise might. Yeah, I'd miss Indian food, but I'd get over it. The media stuff--I mean, there's so much I'm practically drowning in it, and it's not like there's nothing to do for the 1916 billionaire, it's just that less of it is watching screens or listening to magnets vibrate cones. I'd get used to not having AC, and buildings were designed for it back then so it's not nearly as bad as when the AC goes out in a modern house (source: have actually lived in a 1914-construction American house on the NHR, with no central AC). Just don't buy a vacation house in Florida then visit it in August. If you can manage that, you'll be fine. [EDIT] and my 25% (again, optimistically) free time is much lower-quality that that of someone whose time is almost entirely free, since that other 75% is always looming an hour or so away, generating anxiety, breaking up free-time into tiny, nearly useless chunks, making me feel guilty that I'm not working on one of the many things that'll be in that 75%, and so on.