5 ms·
Would You Rather Be Rich In 1900, Or Middle-Class Now?
- cperciva 16y agoI have type 1 diabetes. Insulin wasn't medically available until 1922. Middle-class and alive, or rich and dead? Easy choice to make.
- tomjen3 16y agoIf we go that way I would have to answer the same thing. So a more interesting question would be, if you didn't have insulin, would your answer change?
- dctoedt 16y agoMy wife and I were talking about something similar while walking the dog this morning. I'd said 60 was the new 40; she said there are still a lot of ways aging can and does kill you, like Alzheimers (her mother died of it). I responded "but they're working on that." Then it dawned on me: These days, an integral part of our mental framework is the dollop of optimism that comes with "they're working on that." I wonder whether people 100 years ago had the same feeling.
- korch 16y agoI have thought about this too. It would be bizarre if all of us thinking "they're working on that" had some kind of society-wide placebo effect to actually cause people to live longer and healthier. Now that's a self-reinforced feedback-cycle I can get behind! I think this way of thinking is rather new, especially considering how many more people believe this than 100 years ago. Back then modernity was in full rising force, so there certainly was a social notion of progress happening to everything on a wide scale, and expectations of Western civilization's eventual achievement of some kind of utopia. But back then they were so limited by what they didn't even know about, so their vision of what modernity would become pales in comparison to what post-modernity actually has been.
- jaspero 16y agoThere is a high probability that you wouldn't have had diabetes in the first place. You would be living a very healthy life and more physical activities and oh yes, healthier non-GM foods. Definitely rich and healthy.
- fhars 16y agoThe probability that a person with type I diabetes would have had type I diabetes (and so died a painful death before 35) if born a hundred years ago is close to one, as type I is inherited. And most food was considerably less healthy and safe then, too, only more scarce and expensive. The problem with GM and processed food is not that it is less healthy than what came before it, but considerably less healthy than what can be produced today, which is the relevant reference point.
- cperciva 16y agoAs fhars points out, type 1 diabetes is not based on diet or lifestyle. There is no reason to think that I wouldn't be diabetic if I were born a century earlier.
- melling 16y agoMiddle class now. The world is a much more interesting today. Of course, you'll be able to say the same thing about today 100 years from now.
- BornInTheUSSR 16y agoRich now!
- ojbyrne 16y agoA more difficult question - instead of $70k, what if it was $8k. Would you rather be middle class in 1900, or poor now?
- mgkimsal 16y agoI'd rather be middle class now, my wife would prefer to be rich 100 years ago (actually, in the 1930s, really). I prefer the mod-cons of today, she prefers the ritzy upscale-ness of back then.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Cushman 16y ago> There's no right answer here. I disagree. In 1900 you get two things: more land, and servants. In every other way, the middle class of today live like the kings of a hundred years ago. We have abundant access to as much food as we want, whenever we want it, from nearly anywhere in the world. We have instant access to almost any kind of entertainment we can dream, most of it free or almost free of charge— and even for live entertainment, we can pick and choose from a fabulous array, and it costs almost nothing to participate. We roll around in self-powered, ultra-secure bubbles that separate us almost entirely from the outside world, personal transportation that can take us across Europe or the continent of North America in a couple of days, and in another ten years those conveyances will be self-operated as well. We have the capability to instantly communicate with nearly anyone most anywhere in the world as if they were standing right there in the room, and access to sometimes literally up to the minute information about the latest developments in science, technology, and politics. Not only that, we can afford to personally benefit from most of those developments. And for those of us who live in what were once named the "temperate" regions, we even have the nerve to be outraged when we have to put up with the somewhat too-warm or too-cool nature of the natural environment, so used we are to having it exactly set to our tiny band of maximum comfort. Of course, because there are so many people living like kings today, you wind up having to share most of those things with millions of other people, and it's easy to forget that you are living like a king. But regardless of that, giving it up because you're rich enough to pay someone to wipe your ass for you is pretty clearly the wrong answer in a couple of ways.
- dctoedt 16y agoOne of the money quotes of the podcast was, "[in 1910,] you step on a nail, you might die."
- Cushman 16y agoIt's a good quote, but I don't like how it makes it seem like medical technology is the only thing that's advanced in the past hundred years. The truth is that the same thing applies to every area of life. In terms of real quality of life, not dollars-adjusted-for-inflation, we have better lives in every way. For that matter, I think I have to amend my previous statement— you can hire someone to wipe your ass today. My guess is it would be around $50/hr, and you shouldn't need more than an hour a day. That's more than some of the other benefits of modern life cost your average American, but not by a lot.
- dctoedt 16y agoThis dovetails with the thesis of writer Gregg Easterbrook's 2003 book, The Progress Paradox. He proposes a thought experiment: Would you permanently trade places with a random person who lived, say, 100 years ago? His view was that your answer would probably be "no." [EDIT: Easterbrook's point was that this is a quick, back-of-the-envelope demonstration of the following proposition: Overall, life for the human race has indeed been improving, albeit unevenly and non-monotonically to be sure. His book was a response to the doom-and-gloom crowd who complain that life is going to hell in a handbasket.] (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Easterbrook#Wellness_and_satisfaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Easterbrook#Wellness_and_...) A few years ago I took a stab at extending the thought experiment at http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/progress_hope_a.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/progress_hope_a.....
- bradleyland 16y agoThat's kind of a puzzling question to me. I wouldn't permanently trade places with a random person who is alive today. I can't see what incentive there is to trade places with someone who lived 100 years ago?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- dctoedt 16y ago@bradleyland, I responded in the edit.
- bradleyland 16y agoI see, so the point becomes even more clear when you contrast it to the question of whether you'd trade with some random person in today's world. Imagine you were forced to trade lives with some random person. I'd much rather it be today than 100 years ago.
- pontifier 16y agoIn my opinion this has deeper ramifications than just the effect on the person. I chose rich in 1900 because I feel that the impact of being rich at that time would carry forward... "Them thats got shall, get". A family line wealthy in 1900 would give many opportunities for their descendants. That, in my mind is one of the most important things that makes being super rich attractive... That and the obvious power to push projects forward quickly without having to posture and beg for funding.
- edanm 16y agoIt absolutely astonishes me that 1/3rd of people choose to be rich 100 years ago. I think it's a matter of not appreciating what life was really like back then, and not appreciating just how amazing the world has become (although I could be wrong too, considering I didn't live back then either).
- gojomo 16y agoMany people -- perhaps even most if they're being honest -- care more about relative status than absolute comforts.
- tomjen3 16y agoThink about it - with servants, how much time do you not have to spend cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, or a million other boring things? I think that would be a dealbreaker for a lot of people.
- maneesh 16y agoI mean, if you want a servant, just go live in India or another developing nation...it's still customary in many places.
- marcusbooster 16y ago1900 wasn't that long ago. Many people in American cities live in homes built then. You'd have the wealth and social standing to pick and choose practically any mate you'd like. Plus it was an interesting time, the birth of the modern world. Rich then!
- GBond 16y agothere is a hidden liberal agenda here, right? ;)
- meric 16y agoI choose the Internet.
- pessimizer 16y agoThere's no real definition of middle class, and when one is usually offered, such as $70,000, it's a higher income than 95% of the people in the world. So if the question is whether you would choose to be wealthier than 99.9% of people in the world in 1900, or wealthier than 95% of the people in the world in 2010, I'd say it was a sickeningly decadent question. But, I'd also say that the lifespan gains between 1900 and now are overstated due to a drastic reduction in infant and child mortality, plays and live music are nicer than video and audio recordings, and instant long-distance communication hasn't significantly improved the quality of my life, just alienated me from my neighbors. The math and intellectual culture was just as interesting then as it is now, if not more, and PR was just a twinkle in Mr. Bernays' eye, so I'd be able to avoid the advertising saturation of modern culture. With the addition of being able to replace any device with an actual person or team of people, there's no doubt to me that life would be better as a rich person in 1900. Just avoid nails.
- joeycfan 16y agoI would remind everyone that the Internet was slow in 1900. And by 'slow' I mean 'non-existent' I'll be middle class now, thanks.
- galactus 16y agoBeing rich is not about buying larger TVs and better cars. It's about freedom to do whatever you want to do instead of having to work to survive. Rich in 1900 beats middle-class now, for sure.
- jonknee 16y agoWho says you wouldn't have to work for the $70k in 1900? That's about $1.8m in today's money and plenty of people have to work very hard to earn that kind of coin, big TV or not.
- zokier 16y agoOne thing to consider is that living in the 1900 means that you'll see at least one world war, and probably the great depression too. Not especially happy times.
- lionhearted 16y agoI've got to wonder if people who would choose the rich in 1900 option don't think they're capable of building big things? Take the modern $70k and start building and investing.
- hugh3 16y agoWell, the 2010 version of me has the benefit of being able to weigh up the pros and cons of 2010 vs 1900, whereas the 1900 version of me has to make the decision with incomplete information. Another question: would you rather be rich now, or middle-class in 2120? (No singularitarians, please, we already know your answer.)
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- iuguy 16y agoOn the one hand, being middle class now is perfectly good and comfortable, aside from probably working a 40 hour week. On the other hand being rich in 1900 not only gives you the freedom to do what you want (within the more conservative boundaries of society and technology back then) but also allows you to travel and see cultures in a way that isn't possible now. If you go to a developing country, people wear t-shirts with slogans on them. Advertising is everywhere. If you went to New York in 1900 it's be completely different to the New York of today, as would Paris, London, Shanghai, Buenos Aires, Istanbul and so on. The cultural differences would be so much greater than they are now, as would the dress, the traditions and so on (perhaps less so for the traditions). Then you start looking further afield, away from the cities. Places like Fuji, Rhodesia, India, the near east etc. To experience those things would be somewhat incredible, perhaps moreso than the global, homogenous McDonalds/Starbucks in every town world we see today. Then there's the experiences you could have. You could watch Sandra Bernhard perform. Go to see the Kitty Hawk's maiden flight. Go to Paris and meet people like Claude Debussy, or to Holland and meet Vincent Van Gogh. Visit Sigmund Freud in Austria, watch the birth of Hollywood and meet people like Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin and Stan and Ollie. As for things to see in 1900, you could travel to a still Victorian London and see Queen Victoria's visit. You could go to Australia for the first time (Australia was 'created' in July). You could see the opening of the Paris Metro, and while sipping a bol du Café read about the Boxer rebellion in China. Or you could meet Mark Twain as he comes off the docks back to the U.S. then go to the first Automobile show in Madison Square Garden. It's not as clean cut as you might think. Personally I'd rather be middle class now for various reasons, but I wouldn't rule 1900 out just on the grounds of health or technology.
- jonknee 16y agoI didn't assume that it meant be rich in 1900 and have full knowledge of the future. How would a rich person in 1900 know to go to Kitty Hawk? Or that Hollywood would be what it was? Rich people today are similarly missing out on what will be remembered as the greatest moments (and greatest people) of our times. Where was Bill Gates when Google was founded? Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. Plus, $70k in 1900 is about $1.8m today. You'd never have the clout to do half the things on your list. Not to mention the time, it takes a long time to cross the Atlantic.
- peng 16y agoI'd rather be poor in 2100.
- 1010011010 16y agoAn excellent illustration of how much the Federal Reserve has diluted the value of the dollar over the last century.
- 1010011010 16y agoWell, it is.
- olegkikin 16y agoI'd be so bored in 1900. I'd have to build my own internet. F* that.
- julius_geezer 16y agoLeisure is one thing that 1900-style riches bought. Winters on the Nile, summers or seasons in Europe, for example. Now for a great deal of humanity, leisure fairly quickly becomes boredom, and booze or philandering are required to maintain sanity. But for the occasional born artist, historian, etc, the Henry James, the Edith Wharton, that can be tremendously productive. Would I trade that for 21st century medicine or dentistry? Doesn't matter, really--nobody's offering me the trade.