
Most Ordinary Americans in 2016 Are Richer Than Was John D. Rockefeller in 1916 - tokenadult
http://cafehayek.com/2016/02/40405.html
======
rgbrenner
The author is trying really hard to trivialize inequality. First, comparing
Rockefeller with $1B.. except he was worth what would be $340B in todays
dollars. So first, he lowers the topline of the comparison.

He says a letter overnight is impossible.. even though the telegraph existed
for over 70 years at that point. Then he throws in some more trivial
inconveniences: phones being attached to the wall.

Then he adds in a few lies like being unable to get foreign food in NY in
1916. Hey guess what? NY had plenty of immigration in 1900, and Italian,
German, Jewish, Chinese and Eastern European food was easily found:
[http://leitesculinaria.com/10348/writings-dining-through-
the...](http://leitesculinaria.com/10348/writings-dining-through-the-decades-
american-food-history.html)

And while many of the points are true.. like it taking days to travel to
Europe.. he forgets that as a billionaire, you can send people on your behalf,
and they can telegraph information back to you from Europe. You, as a
billionaire, never needs to make that trip.

And if you're really worried about your limo breaking down.. as a billionaire,
why not just have a few dozen follow you around, just in case? (Edit: also
there were horse drawn and electric taxis operating in NY since the 1890s..
and even if he didn't want to take a taxi, it would still be useful for
sending someone to notify whoever that he would be late for the meeting
(something he pretends can only be done with a phone, and therefore impossible
in 1916.))

He spends no time thinking about how he would actually utilize the resources
of Rockefeller in 1916.. but would trade it all for a phone that isn't
attached to the wall. Sure.

~~~
zone411
>>>First, comparing Rockefeller with $1B.. except he was worth what would be
$340B in todays dollars. So first, he lowers the topline of the comparison.

Does $1 billion vs $340 billion mean even a small improvement in the quality
of life in 1916? I doubt it.

>>>He says a letter overnight is impossible.. even though the telegraph
existed for over 70 years at that point.

True about the telegraph but you ignored the part about the packages.

>>>Then he adds in a few lies like being unable to get foreign food in NY in
1916. Hey guess what? NY had plenty of immigration in 1900, and Italian,
German, Jewish, Chinese and Eastern European food was easily found

How about Thai? Japanese? Turkish? Colombian? Vegetarian? Cocktails?

>>>like it taking days to travel to Europe.. he forgets that as a billionaire,
you can send people on your behalf

That's only when not traveling for pleasure.

>>>And if you're really worried about your limo breaking down.. as a
billionaire, why not just have a few dozen follow you around, just in case?

Good point.

~~~
rgbrenner
> How about Thai? Japanese? Turkish? Colombian? Vegetarian? Cocktails?

If you read the article I linked to, you would see that you could get bear and
elephant meat in NY.

Can I argue the same.. That since elephant meat is no longer on the menu, that
2016 has poor choice of food? Oh how we suffer.

Of course you think that's silly.. because it is.. if elephant meat isn't
available, you'll eat hamburger or whatever, and you'll be happy with it. And
that's the same as it was in 1916.

Fact is that there was plenty of variety of food available in NY in 1916.

(Edit: and don't forget, in this story you're a billionaire.. so if you really
want Thai.. you can spend a few million to send someone to Thailand and bring
back a chef that can make it for you. $1M to someone worth $340B, is the same
as $0.13 to someone worth $45,000 -- the median US net worth:
[http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/middle-class-
we...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/middle-class-wealth/) )

------
themgt
This sort of capitalist meme badly if not intentionally misunderstands human
nature.

Yes, being able to afford dental care and fly around the world is terrific.
But John D. Rockefeller was arguably the wealthiest American to ever live. You
simply cannot quantitatively compare the ability to afford a $150 SouthWest
economy-class flight and an air-conditioned hotel room at DisneyWorld to
running a globe-spanning empire and building a philanthropic legacy that will
last for hundreds of years.

And this is not just some angels-on-head-of-pin debate, it's intimately
intertwined with why inequality is so destructive and why classical economics
has such a hard time dealing with it. Subjectively, each person's relative
economic position is at least as important as their absolute position.

~~~
zone411
The article doesn't claim that you are more powerful in the present, only that
you'd be richer. Bringing up legacy and power that you would have had in the
past does not work because by definition these things are only available to a
few, so equality would not make them available to an average modern person. I
think it would be more correct to talk about the envy.

------
forgotpwtomain
The entire argument (lackthereof) is summed up in this conclusion:

> Honestly, I wouldn’t be remotely tempted to quit the 2016 me so that I could
> be a one-billion-dollar-richer me in 1916. This fact means that, by 1916
> standards, I am today more than a billionaire.

For reasons such as this one:

> Your telephone was attached to a wall. You could not use it to Skype.

In other words there is no argument, by 'most ordinary americans' the author
means: 'I am an ordinary American' and 'I wouldn't exchange my current life
with a 1916 billionaire' \-- which has nothing at all to do with 'wealth' nor
with 'most ordinary americans'.

edit: I don't see why this is down-voted, if you found some substance in this
article that I didn't please feel free to make these points.

~~~
Randgalt
Wealth is not the number of pieces of green paper in your pocket. It's the
things you have and what you can do with those things. I would much rather be
a lower middle class person in America today than King Henry hundreds of years
ago.

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> Wealth is not the number of pieces of green paper in your pocket. It's the
> things you have and what you can do with those things.

While wealth can also be your loved ones, your personal relationships, your
experience and memories, the nature and culture of the land etc.

As long as we are talking about economics and standards of living this should
be defined in a way for which statistically significant numbers can be
obtained e.g. the relative purchasing power, or relative employable labor
relative to a time. (note that none of these are provided.)

Yes, you couldn't 'Skype' in 1916 but I also can't employ Leonardo to draw
paintings for a modestly large income as I could in the 16th century. You
can't pull historical details out of their centuries and call that a
worthwhile comparison because there is no equivalent.

A subjective "it's the worst poverty because I'd have to use a rotary phone in
1916" can be your opinion sure, as is "it's poverty to lose my experiences and
the significant people in my life to be rich in 1916" \- but neither of those
do anything to support the title which states:

> Most Ordinary Americans in 2016 Are Richer Than Was John D. Rockefeller in
> 1916

Since the use of the generic 'most ordinary Americans' indeed requires the use
a broadly applicable and numerically supportable definition of wealth (if one
is to make the argument) rather than a personal one.

I would have no objections if the title was "I an ordinary American, am richer
today than John D. Rockefeller was in 1916" \-- but that's _clearly not_ what
it says.

~~~
Natsu
> Wealth can also be your loved ones, your personal relationships, your
> experience and memories etc.

Yes, but I wouldn't see any reason those should be different in the past than
now, so we can compare only the difference in material goods.

I'd certainly rather be an average person in this day and age than an average
person in the stone age and I think most people would as well if they
understood what it entailed.

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> I'd certainly rather be an average person in this day and age than an
> average person in the stone age and I think most people would as well if
> they understood what it entailed.

As would I, but you simply have no basis to expand this claim into "most
people would rather be Joe the Plumber than Augustus" which is what the
article author is attempting to do with a hodge-podge of anecdotal rhetoric.

~~~
Natsu
I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for
temperature-controlled housing, so at least personally, I'd rather be able to
live in comfort as today than to be a king from ages past.

Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But
I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine
fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls,
having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar
that's supposed to be attractive.

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for
> temperature-controlled housing

I doubt you would feel this way if you'd never heard of temperature controlled
housing - that aside.

> Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers.
> But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming
> imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against
> the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being
> Caesar that's supposed to be attractive.

I'm not at all disputing your particular preference, or mine, or the author's
of the article, if you re-read my past comments the argument is the same:

the particular preference for modern day-convenience of a single individual
over say vast wealth/power != 'most ordinary Americans are richer than J.D.
Rockefeller'.

Now maybe most ordinary Americans really don't care for the same things you
don't care for, maybe for them skype calls and modern health-care (even with
the ridiculous US medical bills) is preferable to Rockefeller style wealth;
but such a point should be supported with data, not "I think it's preferable
so most Americans must also think so." This is terribly shoddy writing with no
material (non-subjective) facts provided to support the argument and we should
expect better on HN (whether we happen to subjectively nod to the opinion or
not is really beside the point).

~~~
Natsu
Well, it really does if you don't take "richer" to mean "has more US dollars"
(or whatever currency) and instead take it to mean "has a better quality of
life."

I don't find it particularly hard to prefer climate control, healthcare, etc.
from the modern age to even the things from just 100 years ago, let alone
further back.

Maybe that should be supported better, but ...

------
AlisdairO
Humans fundamentally judge their situation relative to everyone else. It's one
of the (many) arguments for reducing income inequality. People don't get
hugely happier just because everyone's technological situation has improved -
that's just the new norm.

I suspect most people would be happier as one of the most extraordinarily
wealthy, admired, and free people of a given time than they would as a
(relatively) struggling nobody in a later age. The fact that your car breaks
down somewhat often is probably less likely to bother you when you know that
it's the best there is.

------
SocksCanClose
Dammit -- free markets and new technology do it again!

Not the best written piece in the world, nor the most tightly argued, but the
underlying facts do certainly get at a certain truth: that things get better.
For everybody.

Bread, for example (the production of which used to consume the vast majority
of human labor for many thousands of years). What was once an 80-hour-a-week-
job (growing wheat, turning it into bread), can how be had for $.99 at a
corner store (or the equivalent of about ten minutes' work at minimum wage.
The second argument being, science.

~~~
petecox
I tasted American 'bread' once. :)

$.99 bread might possibly be a regression, flavour-wise.

You do craft some mighty fine bagels though!

------
ajdlinux
Most ordinary Americans in 2016 don't have the same level of power and
influence - which many people value in and of itself - as Rockefeller did in
1916.

~~~
ghaff
That's really the sole counterargument. That, in spite of likely dying younger
and being less comfortable, information starved, etc. etc. in many ways, being
a powerful person would trump all that. And for some it probably would.

------
matt_wulfeck
I'm not sure I buy the argument but I do always appreciate being reminded
about our modern day conveniences.

Sure life is incrementally better now, but isn't wealth truly about power and
luxury as much as it is about convenience?

Rockefeller was extremely influential. I do like my iPhone and accurate quartz
crystal clocks, but he was definitely "richer".

------
andrewprock
It appears that the author is not aware of what money or inflation is.

In 1916, Rockefeller was worth $1 Billion _before_ adjusting for inflation.

Methinks there is some banana-peel smoking going on in there somewhere.

~~~
afsina
Yet, his main argument was not really about it.

~~~
andrewprock
Hence the banana-peels. If you're going to make an argument about people being
richer and poorer, without discussing money, wealth, or inflation, you're
doing everyone a disservice.

~~~
afsina
Actually, my point was, the amount of money was not the point of the article,
but being the richest man yet having a less comfortable life was.

~~~
andrewprock
Ah, so the title of the essay was click-bait.

Clever.

------
Aloha
The article is lacking in substance - but has an interesting core argument -
"Americans in 2016, live much better than even the wealthiest people did in
1916" which is true - while we may have problems, and our economy might be
broken in certain ways, we are light years ahead on a pure technological level
than we were in 1916.

From the influence angle, even with the pervasive power of money, even the
very very rich today are not as powerful and influential as they were a
century ago.

~~~
andrewprock
I'm not sure that being able to watch "The Kardashians" on my iPhone while
stuck in commuter traffic really counts as "living much better" than
Rockefeller.

