Would you rather be super rich in 1900 or sub average wealth in 2016?

tv and iphone would be the least of your problems in 1900. Life expectancy for US males from birth was only 46 years. Today, it's over 70.

Assuming I didn't know of 21st century comforts, super rich in 1900. They lived the best lifes possible at the time. They almost certainly would have been happier than me even though my life may be cleaner. It's all relative.

You know they had skyscrapers 1900-1910? cars in 1908. It wasn't so bad. Maybe you should go to 1880 for a better comparison.

the poorest person in America in 2016 is richer than the richest person in 1900.

gorillas are strong wrote:

tv and iphone would be the least of your problems in 1900. Life expectancy for US males from birth was only 46 years. Today, it's over 70.

This is a common fallacy. Yes the life expectancy from birth was 46, but that takes into account the much higher infant mortality rate. If you throw out all babies born in 1900 that died before age 5, the life expectancy goes way up, almost to where it is today.

Stick with eharmony wrote:

I will take sub average wealth in 2016. I saw how the Vanderbilts lived in 1900. It was nice but think of this. Back then they had no tv, water, sanitary sewer, iPhones and all the technology we have today.

Absolutely. The average middle to lower middle class citizen today is much better off than someone from the 1900s.

1900 you were very travel limited. Food options were much more limited and pricey. No technology if you value that at all. Quality of things from sewage to water to heating to medicine were all drastically lower. Other than the status benefits of being wealthy, there wasn't really anything someone from 1900 had access to that someone middle class today doesn't, and certainly mainly things they didn't.

No antibiotics in 1900. Easy to die from an infection.

The ultra rich in 1900 were given almost free passes on many things that wouldn't fly today. For example, it was common to have multiple mistresses. That would be kind of cool to get away with.

Instead I'm middle class and will enjoy one vag for the remainder of my life.

We all make our choices, but then you could have your cake and eat it too.

Ssfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

The ultra rich in 1900 were given almost free passes on many things that wouldn't fly today. For example, it was common to have multiple mistresses. That would be kind of cool to get away with.

Instead I'm middle class and will enjoy one vag for the remainder of my life.

We all make our choices, but then you could have your cake and eat it too.

Yea if you value the perks of being the high status elite (such as it being very easy to get laid with beautiful women, power, etc.) more than the overall greater quality of life seen today, then I can understand your choice even if it isn't the one I would pick.

Stick with eharmony wrote:

Back then they had no tv, water, sanitary sewer, iPhones and all the technology we have today.

TV, iphones and technology make you fat, miserable and weak

And there have been water and sewer systems since the Harappans 5000 years ago, at least

... oh wait, you're from tennessee... maybe it was a little more recent for you

I can't live without letsrun, so definitely 2016

The lack of proper anesthesia in the 1900 makes me prefer 2016.

Stick with eharmony wrote:

I will take sub average wealth in 2016. I saw how the Vanderbilts lived in 1900. It was nice but think of this. Back then they had no tv, water, sanitary sewer, iPhones and all the technology we have today.

The Romans had sanitation and water 2,000 years ago. Ive even seen a shower from around 1900

If had even a basic level of knowledge you could have mentioned health care. Even the rich often died young in 1900 from illnesses and infections that are easliy treatable nowadays

But I thought everything was great in the past.

When we talk about making America great again aren't talking about 1900 or earlier?

I know a lot of conservatives idealized early America.

i would rather have huge access to medical assistance rather than receiving poor surgery in past times

I would rather be a poor vegan

I'm female. 2016 wins, hands down.

I would be super rich in 1900, and also train to break the WR for the mile.

Any rational person would pick being super rich in any era.