3 ms·

Answer is: never. The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago, but ins

Answer is: never. The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago, but instead of settling we want more: traveling, more and more advanced tech, vast amount of entertainment, etc. Consider the multi-billion dollar media productions (games, TV series, movies, music, books, etc.) that you can access at the command of your voice vs. the same ol' jester, resident poet or occasional travelling theater company that were the only option for a monarch not so many centuries ago.

dwiel 7y ago
I disagree. Try to actually settle down (without winning the startup/rich parents/literal lottery first) and see how it goes. If you haven't raised a nice safety fund and you get sick, you are screwed. If you dont want to live in the middle of nowhere, land owners are going to want a huge chunk of money for that priviledge. Also good luck finding a part time job that pays much better than minimum wage. I know a lot of people who try to do this and there are definitely ways it can happen, but our society is definitely structured to make it difficult. Tell the person working two jobs, paying more than half of their income to rent/mortgage and living paycheck to paycheck that they should just relax and settle down ...
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  100 years ago, you were screwed if you got the wrong infection no matter how rich you were. Now we cure that with a $30 course of antibiotics. Even just the limited healthcare you can get from free clinics and emergency treatment that hospitals are required to provide even if you aren't able to pay would be better than the best care money could buy 100 years ago.
  - dwiel 7y ago
    Of course antibiotics and other things have improved since 100 years ago, nobody is arguing otherwise. The argument is that right now we could have cheap antibiotics and less working hours. The counter argument was that the average person chooses luxury over less working hours, and my counter-counter argument was that this choice isn't actually available to most people. Also, that actually the choice most people have is to work less and live something like 100 years ago with reduced life span, etc, or work a lot and survive.
danharaj 7y ago
If you think you have it better than a monarch because you have things and other people are dissatisfied and you dont know why maybe it isn't more stuff that people want. The point of being a monarch wasn't to have the shiniest toys.
snidane 7y ago
So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs because we have TVs, Netflixes, Games, gadgets, toys etc. I would argue that many people nowadays feel more like slaves than monarchs since they can hardly even afford healthcare in many cases, they probably won't have a pension due to current demographics, they have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords, tax lords, pension lords, healthcare lords and other various fee lords. True, It does feel like Feedalism again, but for many not from position of monarchs but serfs.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs 18th century monarchs, yes. (Not 21st century monarchs.) > hardly even afford healthcare in many cases Better than leeches though. > they probably won't have a pension The reason that's a problem is precisely because health is good. > hey have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords Most adults in the U.S. own their own home (modulo mortgage...but even very wealthy people still choose to take mortgages for yet bigger houses). And expensive housing is generally driven voluntary by urbanization. If you offered me the choice of life as King George III or the average American, I would choose the latter.
claudiawerner 7y ago
> The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago This comparison makes very little sense, because with change in society and social structures, human needs and desires also change. To compare today's person with someone from centuries ago ignores that doctrine. The fact is that kings had the best in society centuries ago, but the majority of people don't have the best in society today. Whether "the best" is accessible is a different matter, but kings had an excellent standard of living in their time period. It is genuinely confusing why someone would think that saying we live better than a king lived centuries ago is some kind of argument that things shouldn't be further improved. Why, exactly, is the king's standard of living relevant today, other than as a historical curiosity?
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Perhaps to put our own desires into perspective. Is an unhappy king of 1000 years past or future helpful for understanding our own path towards happiness? If it shows the futility of material reliance, I'd say yes.

dwiel 7y ago

I disagree. Try to actually settle down (without winning the startup/rich parents/literal lottery first) and see how it goes. If you haven't raised a nice safety fund and you get sick, you are screwed. If you dont want to live in the middle of nowhere, land owners are going to want a huge chunk of money for that priviledge. Also good luck finding a part time job that pays much better than minimum wage. I know a lot of people who try to do this and there are definitely ways it can happen, but our society is definitely structured to make it difficult. Tell the person working two jobs, paying more than half of their income to rent/mortgage and living paycheck to paycheck that they should just relax and settle down ...

TheCoelacanth 7y ago
100 years ago, you were screwed if you got the wrong infection no matter how rich you were. Now we cure that with a $30 course of antibiotics. Even just the limited healthcare you can get from free clinics and emergency treatment that hospitals are required to provide even if you aren't able to pay would be better than the best care money could buy 100 years ago.
- dwiel 7y ago
  Of course antibiotics and other things have improved since 100 years ago, nobody is arguing otherwise. The argument is that right now we could have cheap antibiotics and less working hours. The counter argument was that the average person chooses luxury over less working hours, and my counter-counter argument was that this choice isn't actually available to most people. Also, that actually the choice most people have is to work less and live something like 100 years ago with reduced life span, etc, or work a lot and survive.

danharaj 7y ago

If you think you have it better than a monarch because you have things and other people are dissatisfied and you dont know why maybe it isn't more stuff that people want. The point of being a monarch wasn't to have the shiniest toys.

snidane 7y ago

So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs because we have TVs, Netflixes, Games, gadgets, toys etc. I would argue that many people nowadays feel more like slaves than monarchs since they can hardly even afford healthcare in many cases, they probably won't have a pension due to current demographics, they have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords, tax lords, pension lords, healthcare lords and other various fee lords. True, It does feel like Feedalism again, but for many not from position of monarchs but serfs.

paulddraper 7y ago
> So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs 18th century monarchs, yes. (Not 21st century monarchs.) > hardly even afford healthcare in many cases Better than leeches though. > they probably won't have a pension The reason that's a problem is precisely because health is good. > hey have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords Most adults in the U.S. own their own home (modulo mortgage...but even very wealthy people still choose to take mortgages for yet bigger houses). And expensive housing is generally driven voluntary by urbanization. If you offered me the choice of life as King George III or the average American, I would choose the latter.

claudiawerner 7y ago

> The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago This comparison makes very little sense, because with change in society and social structures, human needs and desires also change. To compare today's person with someone from centuries ago ignores that doctrine. The fact is that kings had the best in society centuries ago, but the majority of people don't have the best in society today. Whether "the best" is accessible is a different matter, but kings had an excellent standard of living in their time period. It is genuinely confusing why someone would think that saying we live better than a king lived centuries ago is some kind of argument that things shouldn't be further improved. Why, exactly, is the king's standard of living relevant today, other than as a historical curiosity?

dr_dshiv 7y ago
Perhaps to put our own desires into perspective. Is an unhappy king of 1000 years past or future helpful for understanding our own path towards happiness? If it shows the futility of material reliance, I'd say yes.