
Would You Rather Be Rich In 1900, Or Middle-Class Now? - simonreed
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/12/130512149/the-tuesday-podcast-would-you-rather-be-middle-class-now-or-rich-in-1900
======
Cushman
> _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.

~~~
marciovm123
Living 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
Yes. 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.

------
pontifier
In 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.

------
iuguy
On 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
I 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.

~~~
iuguy
You are of course completely right about the former. I wasn't suggesting that
someone would or wouldn't have knowledge of the future, simply that you'd have
the opportunity to witness such events. I'm sure there are plenty of events
now that are worthy of attending, and just down the road too (LHC switch-on
maybe) but damned one-temporal-directional memory gets in the way.

The things I put forward were suggestions of ideas for things to do, not that
I'd suggest you attempt to do them all and you're right in that you'd probably
end up running out of money if you tried.

I'm trying to remember a set of films I saw, from a pair of then extremely
rich people who largely lived on cruise lineers during the inter-war years.
They filmed all kinds of stuff, like pre-war france and germany and the
ceremonies of various south and east asian islands. I can't remember their
names though but I'm fairly sure the video is public domain.

Of course, I digress. Thankyou for your comment, it's always good to be
challenged and I think you raise a number of good points.

------
cperciva
I have type 1 diabetes. Insulin wasn't medically available until 1922.

Middle-class and alive, or rich and dead? Easy choice to make.

~~~
jaspero
There 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
The 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.

------
edanm
It 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
Many people -- perhaps even most if they're being honest -- care more about
relative status than absolute comforts.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
Relative status has its benefits when seeking a mate.

~~~
gojomo
This suggests an interesting reformulation of the original query:

Would you rather have a great-grandfather who made $70k/year in 1900, or a
great-grandfather who made $70k/yr in 2010?

------
pessimizer
There'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.

------
ojbyrne
A more difficult question - instead of $70k, what if it was $8k. Would you
rather be middle class in 1900, or poor now?

------
dctoedt
This 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_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Easterbrook#Wellness_and_satisfaction))

A few years ago I took a stab at extending the thought experiment at
[http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/progress_hope_a....](http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/progress_hope_a.html).

~~~
bradleyland
That'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?

~~~
dctoedt
@bradleyland, I responded in the edit.

~~~
bradleyland
I 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.

------
marcusbooster
1900 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!

------
zokier
One 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.

------
hugh3
Well, 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.)

------
meric
I choose the Internet.

------
lionhearted
I'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.

------
julius_geezer
Leisure 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.

------
peng
I'd rather be poor in 2100.

------
mgkimsal
I'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.

------
galactus
Being 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
Who 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.

------
melling
Middle 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.

------
1010011010
An excellent illustration of how much the Federal Reserve has diluted the
value of the dollar over the last century.

~~~
1010011010
Well, it is.

------
olegkikin
I'd be so bored in 1900. I'd have to build my own internet. F __* that.

------
BornInTheUSSR
Rich now!

~~~
dctoedt
Upvoted - I like your thinking - never assume the stated constraints are set
in concrete!

~~~
gloob
That is a useful habit when dealing with the real world, and an annoying habit
when dealing with a purely hypothetical question. In the latter case, it's
called "missing the point".

------
GBond
there is a hidden liberal agenda here, right? ;)

