You Are Richer than John D. Rockefeller Was

Foundation For Economic Education ^ | 04/23/2017 | Donald J. Boudreaux

[SeekAndFind]

This Atlantic story reveals how Americans lived 100 years ago. (HT Warren Smith) By the standards of a middle-class American today, that lifestyle was poor, inconvenient, dreary, and dangerous. (Only a few years later – in 1924 – the 16-year-old son of a sitting U.S. president would die of an infected blister that the boy got on his toe while playing tennis on the White House grounds.)

You could, however, afford the state-of-the-art phonograph of the era. Obviously, you could not download music.

So here’s a question that I’ve asked in one form or another on earlier occasions, but that is so probing that I ask it again: What is the minimum amount of money that you would demand in exchange for your going back to live even as John D. Rockefeller lived in 1916? 21.7 million 2016 dollars (which are about one million 1916 dollars)? Would that do it? What about a billion 2016 – or 1916 – dollars? Would this sizable sum of dollars be enough to enable you to purchase a quantity of high-quality 1916 goods and services that would at least make you indifferent between living in 1916 America and living (on your current income) in 2016 America?

Think about it. Hard. Carefully.

If you were a 1916 American billionaire you could, of course, afford prime real-estate. You could afford a home on 5th Avenue or one overlooking the Pacific Ocean or one on your own tropical island somewhere (or all three). But when you traveled from your Manhattan digs to your west-coast palace, it would take a few days, and if you made that trip during the summer months, you’d likely not have air-conditioning in your private railroad car.

And while you might have air-conditioning in your New York home, many of the friends’ homes that you visit – as well as restaurants and business offices that you frequent – were not air-conditioned. In the winter, many were also poorly heated by today’s standards.

To travel to Europe took you several days. To get to foreign lands beyond Europe took you even longer.

Might you want to deliver a package or letter overnight from New York City to someone in Los Angeles? Sorry. Impossible.

You could neither listen to radio (the first commercial radio broadcast occurred in 1920) nor watch television. You could, however, afford the state-of-the-art phonograph of the era. (It wasn’t stereo, though. And – I feel certain – even today’s vinylphiles would prefer listening to music played off of a modern compact disc to listening to music played off of a 1916 phonograph record.) Obviously, you could not download music.

There really wasn’t very much in the way of movies for you to watch, even though you could afford to build your own home movie theater.

Your telephone was attached to a wall. You could not use it to Skype.

Your luxury limo was far more likely to break down while you were being chauffeured about town than is your car today to break down while you are driving yourself to your yoga class. While broken down and waiting patiently in the back seat for your chauffeur to finish fixing your limo, you could not telephone anyone to inform that person that you’ll be late for your meeting.

There was no American-inspired, British-generated rock’n’roll played on electric guitars. And no reggae.

Even when in residence at your Manhattan home, if you had a hankering for some Thai red curry or Vindaloo chicken or Vietnamese Pho or a falafel, you were out of luck: even in the unlikely event that you even knew of such exquisite dishes, your chef likely had no idea how to prepare them, and New York’s restaurant scene had yet to feature such exotic fare. And while you might have had the money in 1916 to afford to supply yourself with a daily bowlful of blueberries at your New York home in January, even for mighty-rich you the expense was likely not worthwhile.

Your wi-fi connection was painfully slow – oh, wait, right: it didn’t exist. No matter, because you had neither a computer nor access to the Internet. (My gosh, there weren’t even any blogs for you to read!)

Even the best medical care back then was horrid by today’s standards: it was much more painful and much less effective. (Remember young Coolidge.) Antibiotics weren’t available. Erectile dysfunction? Bipolar disorder? Live with ailments such as these. That was your only option.

You (if you are a woman) or (if you are a man) your wife and, in either case, your daughter and your sister had a much higher chance of dying as a result of giving birth than is the case today. The child herself or himself was much less likely to survive infancy than is the typical American newborn today.

Dental care wasn’t any better. Your money didn’t buy you a toothbrush with vibrating bristles. (You could, however, afford the very finest dentures.)

Despite your vanity, you couldn’t have purchased contact lenses, reliable hair restoration, or modern, safe breast augmentation. And forget about liposuction to vacuum away the results of your having dined on far too many cream-sauce-covered terrapin.

Birth control was primitive: it was less reliable and far more disruptive of pleasure than are any of the many inexpensive and widely available birth-control methods of today.

Of course, you adore precious-weacious little Rover, but your riches probably could not buy for Rover veterinary care of the sort that is routine in every burgh throughout the land today.

You were completely cut off from the cultural richness that globalization has spawned over the past century. There was no American-inspired, British-generated rock’n’roll played on electric guitars. And no reggae. Jazz was still a toddler, with only a few recordings of it.

You could afford to buy the finest Swiss watches and clocks, but even they couldn’t keep time as accurately as does a cheap Timex today (not to mention the accuracy of the time kept by your smartphone).

Honestly, I wouldn’t be remotely tempted to quit the 2016 me so that I could be a one-billion-dollar-richer me in 1916. This fact means that, by 1916 standards, I am today more than a billionaire. It means, at least given my preferences, I am today materially richer than was John D. Rockefeller in 1916. And if, as I think is true, my preferences here are not unusual, then nearly every middle-class American today is richer than was America’s richest man a mere 100 years ago.

Republished from Cafe Hayek.

[ADemocratNoMore]

May I suggest the essay from Bill Whittle called Sanctuary? Unfortunately, the originals are not readily available any more, although you can find them in the book “Silent America”

A little over halfway through is a scene in which the Pharaoh Cheops encounters a 7-11 store in the middle of the desert. It is quite relevant to the topic here.

The whole essay is well worth the read, as are any of Bill Whittle’s other writings. A copy can be found here...

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/01/sanctuary-by-bill-whittle/

[Frederick303]

A point on older houses:

Having lived in a wooden house built in the 1870s with only one open heating grate I can tell you they wee very well built to handle hot and cold. The design was such in my house that with one fan in the upstairs I could cool down the house to a fairly comfortable degree, I am sure the high ceilings had something to do with it. Maybe 5 to 10 days in the hottest part of the summer were unpleasant.

It is much worst to live in a 1970s house made with no though to convection cooling requirements. Comparing houses designed for the use with AC is not equivalent to houses designed before such existed.

Second air conditioning is only required because we are used to it, when it does not exist you get acclimatized to hot weather. By late August a 60 degree night seems cold and you put on a extra shirt, when in March you go out in shirt sleeves in such weather. Personally I think heat was more important and central heat in US homes dates back to at least the 1870s.

Living in a stone house showed me they can be very pleasant to live in , during summer with no AC. Typically the older houses had three floors plus the basement, and the upper tow were progressively cooler. With heat onto the ground floor alone they would remain relatively pleasant on the first and 2nd floor. The third floor was pretty much storage, as it was hot in summer and cold in winter.

Screens window covers date to no later than 1868 and were pretty widespread by 1900. Electric fans date from the 1880s and were less common in 1900, but by 1916 both window and ceiling circulation fans were much more common in homes.

Rural electrification was not so common in 1916, it was well past the 1920s when it became common.

[Sam Gamgee]

Of course, there is no doubt, but there is some deception to articles like this. I would contend we should compare NOW to 1975.

Keys goods we can track, say like bread and fruit for food, automobiles, ect, have risen in price faster than income has since 1975. In 1975 a single income earner could have a family, two cars, and live quite comfortably.

Now our houses are smaller, cars much more expensive, and many families are struggling on TWO incomes.

[TruthWillWin]

Only in America can you find a high percentage of the poor are overweight?

[rmlew]

3) Because of the 90 % European stock and a resultant monoculture , in 1916 a women was much safer from a whole range of crimes than today. Many urban areas are no-go regions for folks who do not represent that particular sub culture.

Monoculture? You think we had a monoculture in 1916? Northern and Southern White Anglo-Saxon Protestants barely considered themselves part of the same culture at times and looked down on everyone starting with the Scots Irish and ending with African Americans. {I won't use the terms they would have.} American cities were anything but monocultures and immigrant gangs were as large a problem then as today. Irish, Italians, Jews, and German gangs split on ethnic lines almost sounds quaint today. It would be another generation before Crime Inc put things together in NYC, and only after Italians and Jews butchered their way through the Irish gangs unwilling to play ball.

4) The Justice system had not been corrupted as it is today, in those days it reflected the agreed upon values of the predominate WASP culture. Murder somebody and get caught, 30~40 days later you were likely dead. Do an extremely heinous crime and the law would pretty much allow the crowd to deal with it in the same time interval.
Yes, no, and maybe. Seriously, have you heard of Urban machines?

5) the Culture had not been debased in 1916. The idea in 1916 was entirely towards refining culture, actors were somewhat shady folks, certainly not looked to for setting standards like today. If there was light music available in public it was likely moonlight sonata or some popular ditty that was inoffensive. Today the popular music is pretty dreadful, such songs and “bitch better have my money” being the norm. How has it come to pass that degraded negro music has displaced the European classical music and its derivatives?
There was plenty of risque if not raunchy music at bars, gentlemen's clubs, sporting mens associations (women were the sport), to say nothing of the US military.

[rmlew]

I’ll settle for living 10 years ago and being worth 100 million even after inflation.

[grey_whiskers]

I used to tell my daughters in the 1980’s that the average american eats better food than the rich did a century ago.

Impossible! They didn't have Doritos back then!

...Coca-Cola. Wait a minute...

[grey_whiskers]

Are you forgetting that in 1916, there was no FR?

The mind cannot name nor scarcely conceive such agony...

[antidisestablishment]

Yeah, it was horrible: farm-fresh produce and grass fed cattle and poultry. Fruit in season and home canned for winter. Fish and game for variety, unsanctioned whole milk and real churned butter. A hundred varieties of apples and tomatoes with tastes and textures unimaginable in today’s markets; real smoked ham and bacon, homemade sausage with eggs that had as much yellow as saffron.

Yeah, our modern palette of mass-produced monoculture and processed foods is quite the culinary pinnacle. Bread made without nutritional value; fruits and veggies solely designed designed for transport and storage; and “meat” made from spare parts and less than 30% ‘broth’ seemingly composed of a chemistry lab accident.

Umm umm, that Rocker feller never had it so good. Heck, he probably only had a French master chef and only a dozen or so junior cooks from all over the world.

Just look at the health benefits, too! My, our modern diet has produced the fattest population in history. You just can’t argue with progress.

[Mr. Douglas]

I’m with you in spirit. Also, my wife and I very rarely eat at restaurants and don’t do “processed” foods. We also have chickens that produce all the eggs we need and split a calf with friends when we need beef.

All that said, much of the things you describe are necessary to supply food to 7 billion people. Well, at least if most people live like sardines in cities.