Who lives a better quality of life: A 16th century English king or an American making 35,000 a year?

I would be the king

The king can screw a new servant every day and doesn't need a computer to watch porn.

The King can have sex with any number of very sexy wenches.

Now how about the recent college grad?

Easy decision who has it better. Just sayin

I doubt 35k is even above the poverty line. Make it 150k and it might be an interesting discussion

question man wrote:

Some of my teammates and I were arguing about this today. Would you be living a better quality of life as a 16th century English king or as a young recent college graduate making 35,000 a year in 2014.

The king would have tons of servants, live in the lap of luxury and would have almost total control of everyone around him. However the hypothetical recent college graduate would have a computer, TV, probably a car and all the advantages of the modern world. For argument's sake let's say that the college graduate lives in a large but relatively affordable city (Atlanta, Houston, etc).

Absolute vs relative wealth. Hard question; I would pick the person living in 2014 since you wouldn't die at age 40.

question man wrote:

Some of my teammates and I were arguing about this today. Would you be living a better quality of life as a 16th century English king or as a young recent college graduate making 35,000 a year in 2014.

The king would have tons of servants, live in the lap of luxury and would have almost total control of everyone around him. However the hypothetical recent college graduate would have a computer, TV, probably a car and all the advantages of the modern world. For argument's sake let's say that the college graduate lives in a large but relatively affordable city (Atlanta, Houston, etc).

Today we have Allopurinol. The King would be much happier living today.

Upper-class life expectancy in the 1500s was probably greater than 40. Means are driven down by high infant mortality then, as well. Life then was nasty, brutish and short, but less so for royalty.

umm wrote:

I doubt 35k is even above the poverty line. Make it 150k and it might be an interesting discussion

For a single person in the US the poverty line is about 11,000 a year.

35,000 a year gross in a normal cost area for one YOUNG person is a lot of money. Most people don't know how to stretch a dollar. Go to Asia or Africa and see what real poverty is man.

Addendum: Thomas Hobbes lived to 91.

runner who professes wrote:

Upper-class life expectancy in the 1500s was probably greater than 40. Means are driven down by high infant mortality then, as well. Life then was nasty, brutish and short, but less so for royalty.

.

Yep, and if you made it to adulthood, you were likely to live on to nearly 60.

So we're talking about the Elizabethan era. I'm assuming you want us to ignore the customs and politics and religion of the era (which made life a little complicated for monarchs).

I don't think the availability of sexual partners is a factor here. A great looking, confident, charismatic recent grad can readily sleep lots of women with little to no effort. A sheepish, ugly king would face lots of rejection. He really didn't have the power to make them have sex with him. Plus, he really wasn't supposed to be having sex outside of marriage. Women today are much more attractive than they were then too.

I think the recent grad wins, by a long shot. All the little modern conveniences are too much to compete with. A palace would still be either really cold all the time, or unbearably hot. A recent grad has air conditioning and heating. Being able to sh.it in private, and being able get rid of the excrement easily is great. Kings weren't able to take 20 minute hot showers everyday either.

Food in England is terrible to this day, can you imagine how awful it was in the 1500s? The East India Company basically took over the world by selling pepper. A recent grad can get any type of food from any part of the world, and probably have it delivered to his door, cooked and hot, with less than an hour notice. I had Korean BBQ delivered the other day. It was incredible.

The entertainment options are also great relative to the 16th century. Shakespeare and the theater were big deals because people then had basically no way to entertain themselves before that was available. People must have been so bored all the time, especially kings who didn't work.

High infant mortality also sucks. I can't imagine having a child and watching him or her die. That would be the most horrifyingly sad experience I could go through. Having a bunch of kids die would be so much worse.

Kings would still be exposed to terrible diseases like small pox and cholera. Have you ever had either of those? You probably don't want them.

Traveling anywhere would be miserable. As soon as you leave the palace, the streets would just be filled with sh.it. Getting anywhere would take weeks or months. And you would spend the entire time in a tiny box just staring at the wall (if it was cold). A recent grad can probably afford to fly to the other side of the planet. It will take less than a day, and he'll spend the whole time watching recently released movies.

Do you really value a TV, a computer and a car that much? Very sad.

I've pondered this question many times, and always conclude that on only $25K (average/yr), I enjoy at least as great comfort and far more FREEDOM than any royal of the past. As for the benefit of women's attentions, at least I know that those who share with me do so out of desire rather than any sort of obligation.

Plus running and rock climbing didn't even exist as recreation. Far better than shooting at game flushed out by minions.

This is correct.

runner who professes wrote:

Upper-class life expectancy in the 1500s was probably greater than 40. Means are driven down by high infant mortality then, as well. Life then was nasty, brutish and short, but less so for royalty.

King are you kidding me no contest. Life would have been so sick (in a good way) back in the day. I wouldn't miss technology obviously since it didn't exist in the first place. Life could be so much more reckless and wild a few hundred years ago. Plus if you're the KING, you have a bunch of power.

There were two English kings in the 16th century -- King Henry VIII and King Edward VI. Elizabeth ruled for the rest of the century

Edward died at age 15 of TB. Henry died at 55 of various complications stemming from morbid obesity, an old jousting injury, and various other ailments. Of course Henry had an army of servants, multiple wives, and absolute power. But I wouldn't say that he had a particularly enjoyable life. I'd much rather be that young college graduate. But, then again, in 450 years there won't be any mini-series based on my life.

Henry VII died from tuberculosis, aged 52.

Henry VIII died at 55, potentially of McLeod Syndrome, which is still not curable today.

Edward VI died aged 15, possibly from an infection. However, some historians believe that he was poisoned.

Lady Jane Grey was a stand-in Monarch who was beheaded at 16 after a 9 day reign. Mary had decided it was about time for a Catholic to take charge.

(Bloody) Mary died aged 42, possibly from cancer or an ovarian cyst. She had reigned jointly with King Phillip of Spain. Phillip temporarily succeeded her but was soon seen off. He died at the ripe old age of 71.

Elizabeth died in her sleep at 69,

Modern day American would be worth it for dental hygiene and vaccines alone.

The college grad. But only for the better health care benefits.