Would You Rather Be Rich In 1900, Or Middle-Class Now?

&#62; <i>There's no right answer here.</i><p>I disagree. In 1900 you get two things: more land, and servants. In every other way, the middle class of today live like the <i>kings</i> of a hundred years ago.<p>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.<p>We roll around in <i>self-powered, ultra-secure bubbles</i> 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 <i>self-operated</i> as well.<p>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 <i>minute</i> information about the latest developments in science, technology, and politics. Not only that, we can afford to personally benefit from most of those developments.<p>And for those of us who live in what were once named the "temperate" regions, we even have the nerve to be <i>outraged</i> 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.<p>Of course, because there are <i>so many</i> 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 <i>living like a king</i>. 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 <i>wrong</i> answer in a couple of ways.

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.

On the one hand, being middle class now is perfectly good and comfortable, aside from probably working a 40 hour week.<p>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.<p>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.<p>To experience those things would be somewhat incredible, perhaps moreso than the global, homogenous McDonalds/Starbucks in every town world we see today.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.

I have type 1 diabetes. Insulin wasn't medically available until 1922.<p>Middle-class and alive, or rich and dead? Easy choice to make.

It absolutely <i>astonishes</i> 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 <i>really</i> 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).

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.<p>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.<p>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.

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

This dovetails with the thesis of writer Gregg Easterbrook's 2003 book, <i>The Progress Paradox</i>. He proposes a thought experiment: Would you <i>permanently</i> trade places with a <i>random</i> 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: <i>Overall,</i> 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.]<p>(See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Easterbrook#Wellness_and_satisfaction" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Easterbrook#Wellness_and_...</a>)<p>A few years ago I took a stab at extending the thought experiment at <a href="http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/progress_hope_a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/progress_hope_a....</a>.

1900 wasn't <i>that</i> 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!

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.

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.<p>Another question: would you rather be rich now, or middle-class in 2120? (No singularitarians, please, we already know your answer.)

I choose the Internet.

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.

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.<p>Would I trade that for 21st century medicine or dentistry? Doesn't matter, really--nobody's offering me the trade.

I'd rather be poor in 2100.

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.

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.

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.

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

I'd be so bored in 1900. I'd have to build my own internet. F<i></i>* that.

Rich now!

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