If I can have dinners at expensive restaurants, yachts, manors, apartments throughout the world, unlimited access to high class prostitutes, the respect, deference, fear, and love of the masses who stand in awe of my wealth...<p>rich in pretty much ANY time.<p>No matter what year it is it's always better to be on top. That's where most of the human pleasure comes from.<p>Xboxes and iPhones are really no substitute for being on top of society.
Relative wealth is what gets you the most mating opportunities and gives your genes a competitive advantage, to put it in a pseudo-academic language. Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind is way more interesting and deeper than this article if you are interested in the subject. Spent is even more about relative wealth as a fitness signal, but a bit fluffier.
Rich in 1900 is my choice. I'll bet the food then <i>rocked</i> - I'll just take one year's income at face value and the house I'm living in now, without 111 years of intervening decay. The rich industrialist who lived here in 1900 will have to find new digs.<p>But no contest. I'd turn back that clock right now.
"more authentic pleasures like books, films, music, and jet travel to exotic spots (without T&A frisking at airports)"<p>Yeah, but... 2011 is a win on every front there except the last. (And that may be debatable; you better like your exotic spots <i>very</i> exotic.) If you do not confine yourself to pre-1970s books, firms, and music <i>right now</i>, it's because you like the stuff that came later better, no matter how nostalgic you think you are. You may think there's more garbage in 2011 but there's a lot more good stuff, too, and a lot more well-populated niches.<p>I mean, sure, wealthy in 1973 over middle class today in the broad sense, but not for that reason. And I <i>will</i> take middle-class 2011 over rich 1900. I'm not sure where the exact cross-over is, but it's certainly within that bound.
Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a hacker and a child of the digital age, but I'd take the ability to have a 1ghz computer in my pocket connected to the entire world for a couple of hundred bucks, against paying thousands of dollars for a machine that probably can't even do truetype rendering.
Seems like a false comparison:<p>1973->2011 = 38years<p>1900->1973 = 73years<p>Although it does make me aware of an interesting question. Obviously I'd rather be rich last year over middle class this year. How about five years ago? Ten? A hundred?<p>As fun as questions like this are, we don't get to make that choice. Might as well just focus on getting rich now :-/
Here's an interesting document from the US Census Bureau:<p><a href="http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-097.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-097.pdf</a><p>In 1973, 628,000 families made less than $1000.00 per year. That's $.48 per hour for a 40-hour week. 8.1 million (14.1%) families made less that $5000 that year.<p>In 2011, annual unemployment benefits for an individual can reach about $20,000. In 1973, that amount would rank in the upper 18% of all family incomes.<p>Making $50,000+ in 1973 would rank in the top 1%.