4 ms·
> 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 ki
by 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.
- hugh3 16y agoPeople who need someone to wipe their ass for them can hire a home health aide. That's surprisingly cheap, and will run you between ten and twenty bucks an hour: http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/home-health-aides-what-they-make-what-they-cost/ http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/home-health-ai... If you don't need it, and want your ass wiped for some perverse thrill, I suppose they'd probably refuse to work for you. On the other hand, if you want it for a perverse thrill you can probably find someone on craigslist who'll do it for free.
- kiba 16y agoI rather live today because we might be approaching the era of eternal youth. In the 1900, you better get to work funding all the medical science and debunk hypothesis that are wrong.
- melling 16y agoThere is no evidence to support this statement. With all the hype it might appear to be approaching but we aren't any closer today. More people live to an older age but we're still getting older at the same rate. John Adams, the 2nd US President, for example, lived to 90. 200 years later and most of us won't live that long.
- marciovm123 16y agoLiving like a king is more about power and prestige (both among other people) and less about physical comfort. Human beings are social creatures, not robots, and we are predisposed to care more about what the people around us think than whether we are maximizing our lifetime and minimizing discomfort. In fact, we trade discomfort for social status all the time - have you ever been in a nightclub? It's hot, sweaty, and loud as hell in there...and people pay 20 bucks to get in. On a more extreme scale, many people trade entire lifetimes of discomfort for the chance to "be a king". Think of an astronaut in space, without the benefit of even gravity but knowing that what they are doing is special and unique, and an inspiration to millions... or other examples like Jackass 3D, football, marathons, etc.
- api 16y agoYes. The power! The prestige! The early death of easily curable disease! The paucity of knowledge and culture! Muhuhuahaha! But seriously though... I'd rather be middle class now. That starts to change for me around 1950. At that point it starts to be better to be rich. Interestingly, that gives you a picture of the adoption curve. I feel like being rich in 1950 could buy you what being middle class will buy you now. But all the money in the world couldn't buy that in 1900.
- Cushman 16y agoEven granting that some kind of intangible "power" over others is more valuable to most people than being warm at night and cool during the day, getting fresh and 100% clean meat and vegetables all year round, enriched flour and iodized salt and fluoridated water not even starting to mention antibiotics -- which I remain highly skeptical of -- the prevalence of social media and blogging and increased specialization means that it is now even easier than ever for someone to become known and respected millions of people (especially in the abstract and mostly irrelevant way their subjects used to "know" and "respect" the kings of yore).
- galactus 16y agoDo you really think having to work 40 hours per week to pay a mortgage is better than the life Louis XIV had, only because you have a SUV, a large TV and access to 4chan and reddit? It's not about stuff, people. It's about leisure time, power, social recognition and, ultimately, freedom to do whatever you want.
- Cushman 16y agoYes. Unequivocally so. I think you aren't properly envisioning what Louis' day-to-day life was actually, physically like. Edit: Additionally, if you think that maintaining power and social recognition doesn't require constant effort, you obviously have never known someone who was really popular in middle school.
- galactus 16y agoAnd I think you aren't properly envisioning what living like a real king was.
- arethuza 16y agoKings generally didn't get to be where they were through acclamation of their peers, they generally got there because at least one (and often many) of their ancestors was a spectacular badass.
- ebrenes 16y agoAnd only then if they had a sufficient power base that would endorse said claim. Many are the apparent heirs that died without a crown on their head despite having a legitimate claim to the thrown. You're underestimating how much effort went into maintaining said power and how much effort was required to keep those people supporting the king happy. Surely, a king has many options in how to play these power games and come up ahead but his life hardly consisted of cruising along doing what he pleases like many rich people today.
- defen 16y agoYea, but imagine if you could say you built Versailles, patronized Molière and Racine, quelled the aristocracy, and slept with all the most beautiful women in France.