TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Think you’re living in a ‘hellhole’ today? Try being a billionaire in 1916

43 点作者 tokenadult将近 8 年前

17 条评论

dgllghr将近 8 年前
This argument is disturbing in a number of ways. The first and foremost of which is that it finds acceptable the fact that the middle class may only be better off from the ultra-rich from 100 years ago. In other words, the author thinks it&#x27;s fine that the middle class is slightly under 100 years behind the ultra-rich in terms of quality of life.<p>The article makes no attempt at resolving the underlying and more important question: why is it okay that the ultra-rich of today have the ability to buy so much political power, have access to healthcare that is far more advanced than that which is available to even the middle class (let alone the poor), can live in such a way that causes so much harm to the environment or generally does damage to shared resources, and can have so much influence over information whether via the internet or through articles such as this one? In other words, why is okay that there inequality is so great and progress is applied so unequally?<p>&quot;The future is already here — it&#x27;s just not very evenly distributed.&quot; - William Gibson
评论 #14434998 未加载
评论 #14434979 未加载
评论 #14436420 未加载
评论 #14434968 未加载
nathan_f77将近 8 年前
I like to think about things like this. I also like to think about how Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg don&#x27;t really have a quality of life that is much higher than mine, at least when it comes to technology and media. You can&#x27;t buy a smartphone that is better than an iPhone 7 or a Samsung Galaxy S8. We all have access to the same shows on Netflix, and a practically infinite amount of music on Spotify. I think it would be exhausting to get dressed up and eat at Michelin starred restaurants every day - most of the time I just want something from a restaurant down the road.
评论 #14435229 未加载
评论 #14435654 未加载
评论 #14434999 未加载
评论 #14435174 未加载
评论 #14435018 未加载
chongli将近 8 年前
If you&#x27;re interested in reproducing, and most people are, then it&#x27;s relative wealth that matters. Sure, working in a factory in 1916 sucked. No air conditioning, long hours, terrible safety standards, frequent illnesses or debilitating injuries. On the other hand, today you can&#x27;t even get a job sweeping floors without at least a high school diploma. Many people have been laid off and they&#x27;ll never get a job again.<p>Would you rather risk life and limb to bring home the bread and keep your family of 5 happy and well-fed in 1916? Or would you prefer to be alone and addicted in opioid county, Ohio, today?
评论 #14438526 未加载
评论 #14435166 未加载
elipsey将近 8 年前
I think complaints about wealth distribition are substantially about enfranchisement and regulatory capture. Material well being is important, but so is autonomy. If being disenfranchised and not able to control our labor or our fate is an inadequate cause for compliant as long as we have access to the material necessities of life, then we ought to be perfectly happy in prison.
ashark将近 8 年前
The only convincing things here are healthcare advancements (obviously).<p>Meanwhile, the 1916 billionaire can spend 95+% of their waking time in leisure or doing things entirely of their choosing, even if raising kids (various staff do the hard and not-intrinsically-rewarding stuff like prepping food, cleaning up their messes, shopping for them, and so on, you just play with them if you like, the drudgery is entirely out of your hands). I&#x27;d be lucky to average 25% leisure time over a year (including quality time with kids in that figure). This makes the health thing seem less obviously an unacceptable trade-off that it otherwise might.<p>Yeah, I&#x27;d miss Indian food, but I&#x27;d get over it. The media stuff--I mean, there&#x27;s so much I&#x27;m practically drowning in it, and it&#x27;s not like there&#x27;s <i>nothing</i> to do for the 1916 billionaire, it&#x27;s just that less of it is watching screens or listening to magnets vibrate cones. I&#x27;d get used to not having AC, and buildings were designed for it back then so it&#x27;s not nearly as bad as when the AC goes out in a modern house (source: have actually lived in a 1914-construction American house on the NHR, with no central AC). Just don&#x27;t buy a vacation house in Florida then visit it in August. If you can manage that, you&#x27;ll be fine.<p>[EDIT] and my 25% (again, optimistically) free time is much lower-quality that that of someone whose time is almost entirely free, since that other 75% is always looming an hour or so away, generating anxiety, breaking up free-time into tiny, nearly useless chunks, making me feel guilty that I&#x27;m not working on one of the many things that&#x27;ll be in that 75%, and so on.
tokai将近 8 年前
I think the article is working way to hard to make the 1916 worse than now. I find some of the arguments in favour of the 1916s, less precise watches sound stress reducing, as punctuality can be taken with a grain of salt. Take this: &quot;If in 1916 you suffered from depression, bipolar disorder, a sexually transmitted disease or innumerable other ailments treatable in 2017&quot;<p>Depression, bipolar, and std&#x27;s were treatable in the 1916. Maybe not effectively, but it is not like we are handling depression or bipolar satisfactorily now.<p>Looking at number of suicides then and now, would probably have made for a better argument. Or dwelling on just exactly how our treatments of illnesses have become better.
rocky1138将近 8 年前
I often think of this kind of thing when I buy things for practically nothing or see things which contain what we consider basic features that quite literally did not exist a few hundred years ago.<p>For instance, yesterday I remarked to myself when seeing colourful flag advertisements along the road for a new condo that the colours on the flags were at one time never possible to manufacture, the way purple was reserved for royalty and was impossible to reproduce until we managed to find an animal that produced the dye [0], and even then it took 9000 of the animals to produce a gram. Today, you can buy anything purple for pennies and throw it away without a second thought.<p>I wonder that if a King from the 16th century were to visit my (to me) basic apartment, the first thing he would notice before anything else would be how colourful everything is.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.livescience.com&#x2F;33324-purple-royal-color.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.livescience.com&#x2F;33324-purple-royal-color.html</a>
DINKDINK将近 8 年前
Maybe in 1916, the ultrarich were writing articles that said, &quot;Try being a millionaire in 1816&quot; to mollify the masses.
defen将近 8 年前
If you think material wealth is what matters, then being middle-class today is better. If you think relative social status is what actually motivates people, then being a billionaire in 1916 is better.<p>May as well take the argument to its extreme - would you rather be a lower middle class person on welfare and no career prospects, but who has access to air travel, smartphones, Internet, etc...OR would you want to be emperor of Rome in the second or third century AD?
lisper将近 8 年前
I was just about to write a comment when I noticed that this article has been flagged to death. Personally, I find this troubling. I thought this was a very good article, well within the scope of HN. I wonder how much other good stuff is being flagged to death. The haters are winning. :-(
评论 #14435190 未加载
jstewartmobile将近 8 年前
I can&#x27;t believe George Will gets paid actual currency to trot out the old worn-out &quot;look how good you poors have it today&quot; argument. It completely misses the point.<p>The problem isn&#x27;t that today&#x27;s billionaires have more toys, houses, and concubines than the rest of us. The problem is that money is power--and they have so much of it that they can short-circuit the avenues of democratic self-government.<p>If your kids are in school, public or private, chances are Bill Gates has more input on how your kids are educated than you do. Or if an oil company wants to frack in your neighborhood, no matter how outstanding the town hall turnout may be, I&#x27;d put my money on the oil company eventually getting its way.
barrkel将近 8 年前
Without a shadow of a doubt I&#x27;d rather be a billionaire in 1916 than middle class today. It isn&#x27;t even close. The only way I can self actualise today is in the smallest of spheres, the most local of effects. I can command the movement and labour of very few people.
Top19将近 8 年前
This is a terrific article that puts all of the benefits of living today in perspective.<p>The frustrating thing about many economic statistics, and this is talked about at length in &quot;The Second Machine Age&quot;, is that they include very little of things we would deem very important. So things get &quot;mathematically worse&quot; but in reality are quite a bit better.<p>I don&#x27;t want to go at length on this and beyond what my memory can recall, but an example they used in the book is Wikipedia. It&#x27;s incredible obviously. But it does not factor in any quality of life or GDP statistic.
评论 #14434959 未加载
评论 #14435301 未加载
评论 #14434918 未加载
danharaj将近 8 年前
I&#x27;m pretty sure Rockefeller would have turned down the offer to instead be a single mother living on $10,000 in rural Mississippi. And would I prefer to have the wealth and status of Rockefeller in 1916? <i>of course</i>.<p>So, given that bit of common sense, what makes this argument pointless and&#x2F;or irrelevant? Should I just descend into complete and abject despair over the nice stuff we&#x27;ll have in 2116? There&#x27;s something obviously wrong with this line of reasoning.<p>Maybe it&#x27;s the fact that regardless of how much nice stuff we have today, our class and wealth still largely determines what we do with our lives and our relations to others, and those can be arbitrarily hellish regardless of the material comfort involved.<p>This sort of argument is as miserable as that Fox News segment a few years ago that tried to downplay how miserable poverty can be by citing refrigerator and microwave ownership rates. Not surprising that a paleocon pseudointellectual like George Will would latch on to such a shallow and frivolous argument.
评论 #14435049 未加载
johnwheeler将近 8 年前
Penn Jillette said there are two certainties:<p>1. The world is always getting better.<p>2. Everyone thinks it&#x27;s always getting worse.
评论 #14435065 未加载
reasonattlm将近 8 年前
What is wealth? Let me try a slightly non-standard answer to that question. Wealth is a measure of your ability to do what you would like to do, when you would like to do it - a measure of your breadth of immediately available choice. Therefore your wealth is determined by the resources you presently own, as everything requires resources.<p>For the sake of argument, let us say that your resources presently amount to a leather bag containing a hundred unmarked silver coins. Interestingly enough, by the &quot;what would you like to do&quot; measure, you are fantastically more wealthy than any given ancestor put in the same position of ownership. You have immensely greater choice. Clearly there is more to wealth-as-choice than present property. We must also consider the historical investment made into increasing choice, and into lowering the cost of specific - usually popular - choices. The engines of technology and open, free markets are turned by people to create new, better, cheaper choices. The choice to fly, the choice to remain alive with heart disease, the choice to avoid that heart disease.<p>Where do silver coins - or indeed, any other resources you might own - come from? Where does investment come from? After all, we don&#x27;t come into this world with the proverbial silver implement between the teeth. No, we worked for those coins. We spent time and negotiated payment for that time. Why? Because time is valuable.<p>But time spent alive, measured in the ticking of heartbeats, is more than valuable - it is wealth itself, the source of all other measures of wealth. All property was created by someone, somewhere, taking their time. The creation and exchange of property is a way to make time fungible, transferrable, a more valuable resource. Time spent alive is the root of all property, all human action, and thus all wealth - both the silver in your pocket that provides for present choice, and the wealth of possible choices created by past investment.<p>Time is everything. How much have time you spent reading this far? Could you have been doing something more useful, more optimal from your perspective? We make these small evaluations constantly, because time is the most valuable thing we have.<p>We all go through engineering our cycles of property and time; how can we best optimize time to generate property that can be used to make our time more effective? We do this in small ways and large, but everyone does it. Some people do it so effectively they launch themselves into property escape velocity, exponentially increasing the effectiveness of their time and exploring the outer limits of what it means to maintain ownership of a great deal of property.<p>Interestingly, despite the grand importance of time as the absolute foundation of wealth, very little progress has been made in the most obvious optimization of all: creating property that can create more time. More heartbeats, more health, more time spent alive and active. Rejuvenation medicine, capable of repairing the damage of aging. Tissue engineering to generate replacements for worn organs. The cure for cancer. If you could do all that, then the much more productive form of escape velocity becomes possible - longevity escape velocity. Why strive to maintain an empire of property that will crumble to dust when the degenerations of age catch up with you when you could be that fit-looking guy having a blast swimming in the breakers every other Sunday for as long as you like?<p>Wealth is exactly time, and here we are, bordering the era of biotechnology for the repair of aging. Planning ahead for the best possible personal future starts with investment now. Think about it.
评论 #14434980 未加载
tobyhinloopen将近 8 年前
Kind of silly article, but was a fun read. While the article does trigger a &quot;wow we actually have it quite good now&quot; feeling, don&#x27;t forget being a billionaire means more than having a lot of money.<p>It means you had major success and you are one of the greatest. It means you have status and respect. It means you are capable of financially supporting other people, helping them and help fixing their problems.<p>Not only can you provide for yourself up to highest of standards of living of 1916, you can provide for 1000s of other peoples up to the higher standards of 1916. Helping people is fun :)