I used to tell my daughters in the 1980’s that the average american eats better food than the rich did a century ago.
I read the article and ..
... I’ll take it.
The author misunderstands just about every topic they speak of, and only arrange it in a self-centric cloud of bullshittery.
Skype ? Who gives a flying ****.
Travel times ? Being late for appointments ? If you were living in the east, and had an appointment in the west, and the trip took 96 hours you wouldn’t leave 97 hours before you were due. Letters and messengers would be exchanged and you would get to town a day or two before the appointment.
They traveled without stress and without pressure to be anywhere. Their lives were not measured in billable hours. In fact, before the unions came along “working hours” didn’t really exist and the truly successful found ways to make a big impact in the least amount of time possible.
Trust me, dingbat, it was better.
Disease ? Of course there was less treatment back then, and people died from things easily. But if 10% of the population carried simple disease, today it’s about 80% (and feels like 100% in the winter) that carry diseases that are treatable. And still about the same percentage carrying untreatable disease.
Some people have no business proselytizing about statistics. Like I have no business correcting people’s grammar.
Thanks to the internet and modern over the counter “cures”, it is amazing how little one actually needs a general practitioner these days.
And regarding the toe, I had no idea what a godsend modern anti-bacterial creams are.
OTOH my Dad (her son) traveled the world both for business and pleasure.And I've traveled to even more places than my Dad...every continent but Antarctica (and Antarctica's on my bucket list).
The idea that the American middle class of today lives better,in many important ways,than did the Rockerfellers of 100 years ago is very compelling in my mind.
Has the author ever heard of inflation?
I doubt the guy would be broke if he was alive today. Maybe disgustingly old, but not broke.
And can you imagine what a John Rockefeller or a JP Morgan would pay in 1900 for the equivalent of a “smart phone”?
This is all because of Capitalism. Not Socialism or a “third way.” Capitalism. Capitalism pulled more people out of poverty than any economic system in human history. Capitalism gave smart phones to the poor. Capitalism gave what would have been cutting edge medical treatments from 20 years ago to the poor today. The only “problem” with Capitalism is that what is new is expensive. If you want a cutting edge medical treatment today, you pay for it. And many people can’t afford it. But if you are willing to live with what was cutting edge 10 or 15 years ago, you can get it cheaply and easily.
I cannot imagine living in 1916 with any amount of money. I think of the heavy wool clothing, the lack of air conditioning, the prevalence flies due to the ubiquity of horse manure, the absence of window screens, the home refrigerator, rubber-soled shoes, peanut butter, the list goes on.
This view explains why the government thinks it can tax me so much... I’m a multi-millionaire!
So many fallacies. The one that always gets me is the ‘improvement’ in the infant mortality rate snce 1950’s- all of it resulting from the killing of children by abortion.
Good article. I think about this concept all the time, and imagine how it will be many years into the future, too.
I would go back - but would take a large box of antibiotics with me.
The author conveniently ignores the fact that as a billionaire you could bed pretty much any woman you desired. For that reason alone, this analysis is worthless.
i suppose it depends on your lifestyle and point of view
Rich = not having to go to work, not techno garbage.
Electricity! Power for lights, cooking, refrigeration etc.
Air conditioning is a miracle!
Medical advances allowing you to live a longer better life.
Eyeglasses, lasik.
TV and radio entertainment in your home. Music, dance, comedy, drama, sports, video games.
Phone to talk to anyone in the world.
The internet! Information of all sorts at your fingertips.
You look at the photos from way back and you see people’s faces with the look of hard living.
Actually, this article made me realize I’d be rather happy to live with the means of John D. Rockefeller in 1916. Almost all of the examples of modern progress the author cites I could easily live without. The medical risks would be of concern, of course, but people of that era just had to accept what they could not change.... same goes for us now.
I could give a frig about Rockefeller or what any fella has really.
Hope they enjoyed it while they had it or what’s the point of having it?
What makes the modern times better is you can choose to live like its anytime period you want.
If you want to live without modern technology then go right ahead.
Myself i like the internet..well, what i consider the good parts of the internet.
Its wild to be able to almost instantly go from listening to music from 1800’s to listening to listening to Blues from the 1920’s to listening to a Jack Benny program form the 40’s to watching a movie from the 50’s.
Or, to watch a how to video that shows you how to fix the fridge or fix the roof or make Maple Syrup or whatever!
Not only can you map a trip out but you can find where the closest Walmart, or fast food joint, or garage or Public Library is in any town on your way!
I like having lots of food choices,too.
Still i enjoy the simple things in life.
Going camping and living basic.
Enjoying a starry night or a campfire.
I still enjoy “doing nothing”
Sitting on a porch swing.
Enjoy listening to birds or the sound kids playing.
I can live without Air conditioning or Cable TV or even a telephone (except for work or an emergency)
Visit the mega estates in Rhode Island to see how the ultra rich lived. The mansions were stone, I have to believe they were not very temperature controlled. Poor lighting, electronics, etc. I do believe we live better than the richest of rich back at the turn of the century.
You just can't believe how cautious I am, driving that 1/4 mile from the school to the house. lol
There is one simple statement that can be made about life a century ago, life and life choices were SIMPLER than they are today! Note that I do not equate simpler with better, just with the fact that the choices (decision tree) then were much fewer than in modern times.
Take the example of communicating one-on-one in 1900. Disregarding the ridiculous (smoke signals, heliograph etc.), you had the US Mail, personal-courier, telephone or telegraph. That decision tree was reduced by distance and consequent costs to the point of only mail and telegraph being practical. Now, we have what seems to be an almost infinite ability to reach out to someone, limited only by shared technology. How long ago was the query “Do you skype” a nonsensical jumble of words?
FYI: This is by no means an unmitigated blessing! I, personally, am convinced that many people would be innately happier with fewer required decisions rather than more. There is a psychological burden in the making choices and the more important they are the larger the burden.
A straight-forward example of the changes from a century ago; the matter of retirement! A century ago, the concept of ‘retirement’ did not exist for all practical consideration. You worked until you died and that was generally at an age we now consider to be middle age, 50s-to-60s. If you did out-live your working life, you lived with your descendants or died quickly in poverty. Thus the ‘planning’ needed for that end-stage of life was zero.
Now, oy vey, have we got headaches. Where do you put retirement money or do you spend it on your kids instead? Do you even bother to be married before the kids? Should the money go into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs or Uncle Murray’s investment club which might be better than Uncle Sam’s MyIra. The decision matrix on just that single topic more resembles a plate of cooked spaghetti but much less tasteful!