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

No letrun.com in 1900???? I'll take being 2010s poor any day!

I would not want to live in the pre-internet era ever again.

Who played right field for the Indians in 1987? Who finished 2nd to Joe Falcon in the 1990 Dream Mile? Did Screech end up going to jail?

Do you know the answers to these questions? I don't but if I cared enough to find out I could in seconds. Instant access to information is something I never want to do without.

We recently toured Biltmore and it's great seeing how the super rich lived in 1900, until you reach the end of the tour and find out George Vanderbilt died prematurely at 51 from something that nowadays is so mundane and easily treatable.

Another observation is that we have much more interesting food, athletic and artistic choices and diversions than than even the wealthiest had back then.

Finally, even lower working class people today have access to and enjoy things such as comfortable cars, centrally heated and cooled homes, vacationing in exotic places, ocean cruises, etc. that only the very wealthy back then could afford.

Therefore, while quality of life is relative, I think living within one's means with a sub-average income is desirable unless you have an overwhelming need for armies of servants to order around.

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.

I bet there is way more marital infedility now than in 1900. Way more. Relgiion isn't as important.

I'd like to have the servants and what not of 1900 but having just spent a weekned without air conditioning, that would be tough. Plus no NFL??

I know this. I'd love to go back there for a weekend just to see what it was like.

American Privlege wrote:

"Sub Average Wealth" needs a clearly defined number.

Millions of people today live without clean water and sanitation. The world average is far less than the US average.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the worldwide average individual wealth is around $12,000. -

http://www.statista.com/statistics/203930/global-wealth-distribution-by-net-worth/

Actually, the average is closer to $33,000. The median is far less.

juicy miler wrote:

American Privlege wrote:

"Sub Average Wealth" needs a clearly defined number.

Millions of people today live without clean water and sanitation. The world average is far less than the US average.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the worldwide average individual wealth is around $12,000. -

http://www.statista.com/statistics/203930/global-wealth-distribution-by-net-worth/

Actually, the average is closer to $33,000. The median is far less.

Maybe the US average - maybe. No way the World average is that high.

Life expectancy was stumped by the high child mortality rate.

Ben Franklin and John Adams lived to be over 90 and Thomas Jefferson to 83 and James Madison to 85, so even back at the end of the late 18th and in the early 19th century, well-connected folks could live very long lives (except George Washington, who was essentially bled to death by his doctors).

Back in 1900, Manhattan Island was circled by millions and millions of oysters, and having three dozen at lunch wasn't so unusual. That I would have liked.

Being super rich in 1900 wasn't great. Around 1850 though, that would be wholly different. I'd love to sit on my porch smoking a nice cigar and drinking a good whiskey while overlooking the cotton pickers working hard to make me even richer. TV and Internet can't beat that.

Rojo brings up a great point about the NFL...but I'm a Bills fan. I actually started watching running races more than football because they sucked so badly for so long. And now that Peyton Manning is gone, all I have left to watch is Drew Brees before I stop caring.

I also don't own a smartphone of any kind. No lost memories there.

The big problem is that there would be no fantastic running shoes. Think about it. Even a shoe today that you think sucks is way, way, way better than anything that could have been manufactured in 1900. Also no digital stopwatches. Boo.

But, then again, if I were really wealthy today, I'd probably just spend it all on alcohol and *ahem* "showgirls," which I could definitely still do back then.

No income tax that far back, too!

So I take 1900, or even 1880 as one person suggested.

1900s, Probably every hobby jogger here alone would win the Olympics in just about everything.

Pick stocks, develop industry, plan for the future.

There is a very good movie called midnight in paris i think by woody allan. Basically every decade thinks previous generations had it better. Grass is always greener in what was written down.

That being said wait til they say in 2116 how great we had it.

2016. Brazilian waxing. EOM.

My great great grandfather was a college professor in 1900. He lived a good life in a college town (within walking distance of his work, and with his house across the street from his golf course) for many years, and, by the way, the town had running water (from 1886) and sewers (from 1893). He enjoyed a life of untrammeled freedom in those days (e.g. no income tax), most issues of governance were decided by the voters in his town untroubled by federal or state regulations. His life style was certainly superior to someone of sub-average wealth today. He had time (in the summer) to make trips across the US and to Europe, and (after he retired) he bought a winter place in Florida. He was not of sub-average wealth in his day, nor was he rich. The one place where his lifestyle might be considered inferior is in the relatively low level of available health care and the risks that posed to him and his family. But he died at the age of 92 in pretty good health right up until the end.

I think 1900. People are always thinking I am copying off of Superman or Super Dave, but I swear I'm an original!

I think my powers would be more impressive at the turn of the century as well.

1900 and not even close. My vocabulary and handwriting might actually be halfway decent as well.

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.

Except of course with a sub average salary you are not living in the US. Pretty much everyone in the US (even the homeless) makes well above average salary. Sub average income is going to be in the ~2k range and you are living in some developing country whose life expectancy might be surprisingly close to 46.

Love the life I'm living now. No reason to trade for something unknown.

no brainer wrote:

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

This is true. Even if someone truly has it better, feeling like you have a lot of wealth tends to make people feel happy. This is why a common happiness tip is to live in a neighborhood where you are **slightly** richer than everyone else.

Also, I would really struggle in 1900 if I had to live at that time with my current knowledge/habits because of all the modern technology I would miss, but if I had never known what it's like to have modern technology, I wouldn't mind.

Super rich in 1900. I would have tons of women and buy an estate close to miles and miles of running trails. I dont care what kind of sneakers I run in. There isnt much competition or road races anyways in 1900. I would live a simple life free from letsrun or computers or smart (or stupid) phones, away from internet and TV (which I don't have anyways) and have wine, women, and song. What gadget can make up for that? One thing I learned, hours of running and women makes life heaven, add wine onto that and I'm golden. The computer age is just another form of slavery of perfection and is taking over like a disease creating a world of stress that didnt exist in 1900. I just want to die before the war starts.