5 ms·

Let's see. Currently out poor have it better than kings 200 years ago. (At least in Germany) I don't say this is fair just that it's easier for a society to i

Let's see. Currently out poor have it better than kings 200 years ago. (At least in Germany) I don't say this is fair just that it's easier for a society to increase the base level for everyone

gmerc 3y ago
People say this a lot but is that really true? I feel it needs objective measurements including anything from access to health care, drug risks, etc. Most importantly any progress made by humans as a whole rather than “the poor” needs to be subtracted such as general progress on medicine. Frankly this argument is used as a cludgel
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Currently out poor have it better than kings 200 years ago. (At least in Germany) Only if you look at medical and technical advancements, but objectively, kings in Germany had the amount of land and real estate that the modern German can only dream of. Sure, we have iPhones and Netflix which kings didn't have, but they had the valuable apprecaible assets the we don't have.
- Frannyies 3y ago
  And? You still have more food choices and proper entertainment. It's warm when you go to the toilet at night. We even have the trend of people transforming their garden into stone garden due to the effort. What's the benefit of those assets really?
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >What's the benefit of those assets really? Not queuing with 100 people to visit a moldy overpriced Berlin apartment. Not worried about your retirement, if your pension will be enough to pay for your rent when you're 80. That's what assets are good for. Having Spotify doesn't make up for that.
    - dannyobrien 3y ago
      on the other hand, you have less worries about the closest 100 people in your world poisoning you to get hold of your mouldy cold castle. and actually having a retirement.
    - freefaler 3y ago
      If you're 15th century peasant in some of place in Germany you won't see retirement either you'd be dead by 45. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy And your quality of life would be far worse than "in the queue with other 100 people"...
      - gmerc 3y ago
        I love how this somehow is used as an argument for todays wealth disparity. “Well kids, you could have been a Jew under Hitler, so go kiss Elons feet and be thankful” to put the argument to the max.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        Sure, it sucked being a peasant, but the original comparison was that the peasants of today have it better than kings of the past.
      - flangola7 3y ago
        The comparison was to kings, not peasants.
        freefaler 3y ago
        Statistically the chance of being a king is miniscule... Currently king's don't sit in queues either. So the comparison is mingled. Compare kings of yesteryears with today's kings or common folk with common one today.
- spacephysics 3y ago
  Yeah I think the argument is more so the base level rises dramatically higher. I’d gather to say at least better than most nobility, if we’re just judging on land. Then again, I do love c-sections to reduce mother and infant mortality, birth control, and antibiotics. I’d say those alone are better than any king/queen had access to in the past
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  Modern poor people don’t even have iPhones and Netflix. The word “poor” gets thrown around in these discussions in place of what is really being referred to, lower middle class to middle class.
nico 3y ago
The issue is that well-being is relative and subjective You can’t “objectively” look back and say people “have it better” now Sure, you can look at all sorts of data and metrics, but that doesn’t mean people feel like they are better off now, which is what matters in the end So the real question we should be trying to answer is: are people feeling better now than how they felt 200 years ago? We could talk about it forever, but ultimately, it’s impossible to know
- Frannyies 3y ago
  I can make reasonable guesses.
- weaverheavy 3y ago
  Medieval peasants worked about 1080 hours a year or an average of 20 hours a week. I wont speculate on how happy they were, but they were probably able to spend more time at home with their family/friends and local spiritual community and probably got more sleep than most people do today. We may have better hygiene and live longer on average compared to then, but most of our lives are spent away from most of the people we care about/take care of.
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    I generally agree with this sentiment, but I think it's important to recognise that this ISN'T an accurate portrayal. Yes, they worked less in service to others... but then they also had to go work their own plot for their own food, etc. They likely laboured as much as we do, once you include the things you need to do to live and participate in society. Now, how it affects your mental health to do work on behalf of yourself vs. on behalf of others is a different question.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
I recommend reading grandpa Kropotkin.
- Frannyies 3y ago
  I'm only finding some cartoon character. What do you reference?
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    "The conquest of bread" and "Mutual Aid" are classics.
SanderNL 3y ago
Kings are a poor comparison. It’s a shit job and sucks in all kinds of surprising and non-surprising ways. Are our poor better off than financially independent aristocrats of yesteryear? The kind that can be “an artist” or something their whole life. I guess in some ways it’s better now, more tech. But I’m not sure freedom and respect can be bought/replaced with tech alone.
- j7ake 3y ago
  If you’re having kids, you would want them to be born in a poor family in modern day Germany than to aristocrats 300 years ago. The infant mortality back then was brutal, even for the aristocrats.
  - gmerc 3y ago
    The infant mortality was high for everyone, poor or not. So it’s a bad measure
  - wruza 3y ago
    But if you asked aristocrats to swap infant mortality with modern poor life, they might have a spectrum of opinions not necessarily leaning towards being poor. The point is that modern worries are also, well, modern.
8note 3y ago
The poor 100 years ago certainly had it worse than the kings 300 years ago. Dying in a coal mine to enrich a capitalist wasn't a great time. If it's the wealth centralization that made things great, you'd expect that the poor to be at their best when the robber barons were in charge
slaw 3y ago
I don't so. I would rather be a king 200 years ago than a poor today.
- macrolocal 3y ago
  Right, that's 1823, about the time of Frederick William III. Beethoven might have dedicated a symphony to you.

Let's see. Currently out poor have it better than kings 200 years ago. (At least in Germany) I don't say this is fair just that it's easier for a society to increase the base level for everyone

gmerc 3y ago

People say this a lot but is that really true? I feel it needs objective measurements including anything from access to health care, drug risks, etc. Most importantly any progress made by humans as a whole rather than “the poor” needs to be subtracted such as general progress on medicine. Frankly this argument is used as a cludgel

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>Currently out poor have it better than kings 200 years ago. (At least in Germany) Only if you look at medical and technical advancements, but objectively, kings in Germany had the amount of land and real estate that the modern German can only dream of. Sure, we have iPhones and Netflix which kings didn't have, but they had the valuable apprecaible assets the we don't have.

Frannyies 3y ago
And? You still have more food choices and proper entertainment. It's warm when you go to the toilet at night. We even have the trend of people transforming their garden into stone garden due to the effort. What's the benefit of those assets really?
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >What's the benefit of those assets really? Not queuing with 100 people to visit a moldy overpriced Berlin apartment. Not worried about your retirement, if your pension will be enough to pay for your rent when you're 80. That's what assets are good for. Having Spotify doesn't make up for that.
  - dannyobrien 3y ago
    on the other hand, you have less worries about the closest 100 people in your world poisoning you to get hold of your mouldy cold castle. and actually having a retirement.
  - freefaler 3y ago
    If you're 15th century peasant in some of place in Germany you won't see retirement either you'd be dead by 45. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy And your quality of life would be far worse than "in the queue with other 100 people"...
    - gmerc 3y ago
      I love how this somehow is used as an argument for todays wealth disparity. “Well kids, you could have been a Jew under Hitler, so go kiss Elons feet and be thankful” to put the argument to the max.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Sure, it sucked being a peasant, but the original comparison was that the peasants of today have it better than kings of the past.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      The comparison was to kings, not peasants.
      - freefaler 3y ago
        Statistically the chance of being a king is miniscule... Currently king's don't sit in queues either. So the comparison is mingled. Compare kings of yesteryears with today's kings or common folk with common one today.
spacephysics 3y ago
Yeah I think the argument is more so the base level rises dramatically higher. I’d gather to say at least better than most nobility, if we’re just judging on land. Then again, I do love c-sections to reduce mother and infant mortality, birth control, and antibiotics. I’d say those alone are better than any king/queen had access to in the past
SkyMarshal 3y ago
Modern poor people don’t even have iPhones and Netflix. The word “poor” gets thrown around in these discussions in place of what is really being referred to, lower middle class to middle class.

nico 3y ago

The issue is that well-being is relative and subjective You can’t “objectively” look back and say people “have it better” now Sure, you can look at all sorts of data and metrics, but that doesn’t mean people feel like they are better off now, which is what matters in the end So the real question we should be trying to answer is: are people feeling better now than how they felt 200 years ago? We could talk about it forever, but ultimately, it’s impossible to know

Frannyies 3y ago
I can make reasonable guesses.
weaverheavy 3y ago
Medieval peasants worked about 1080 hours a year or an average of 20 hours a week. I wont speculate on how happy they were, but they were probably able to spend more time at home with their family/friends and local spiritual community and probably got more sleep than most people do today. We may have better hygiene and live longer on average compared to then, but most of our lives are spent away from most of the people we care about/take care of.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  I generally agree with this sentiment, but I think it's important to recognise that this ISN'T an accurate portrayal. Yes, they worked less in service to others... but then they also had to go work their own plot for their own food, etc. They likely laboured as much as we do, once you include the things you need to do to live and participate in society. Now, how it affects your mental health to do work on behalf of yourself vs. on behalf of others is a different question.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

I recommend reading grandpa Kropotkin.

Frannyies 3y ago
I'm only finding some cartoon character. What do you reference?
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  "The conquest of bread" and "Mutual Aid" are classics.

SanderNL 3y ago

Kings are a poor comparison. It’s a shit job and sucks in all kinds of surprising and non-surprising ways. Are our poor better off than financially independent aristocrats of yesteryear? The kind that can be “an artist” or something their whole life. I guess in some ways it’s better now, more tech. But I’m not sure freedom and respect can be bought/replaced with tech alone.

j7ake 3y ago
If you’re having kids, you would want them to be born in a poor family in modern day Germany than to aristocrats 300 years ago. The infant mortality back then was brutal, even for the aristocrats.
- gmerc 3y ago
  The infant mortality was high for everyone, poor or not. So it’s a bad measure
- wruza 3y ago
  But if you asked aristocrats to swap infant mortality with modern poor life, they might have a spectrum of opinions not necessarily leaning towards being poor. The point is that modern worries are also, well, modern.

8note 3y ago

The poor 100 years ago certainly had it worse than the kings 300 years ago. Dying in a coal mine to enrich a capitalist wasn't a great time. If it's the wealth centralization that made things great, you'd expect that the poor to be at their best when the robber barons were in charge

slaw 3y ago

I don't so. I would rather be a king 200 years ago than a poor today.

macrolocal 3y ago
Right, that's 1823, about the time of Frederick William III. Beethoven might have dedicated a symphony to you.