Posted on 05/08/2017 8:00:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Having bestowed the presidency on a candidate who described their country as a hellhole besieged by multitudes trying to get into it, Americans need an antidote for social hypochondria. Fortunately, one has arrived from Don Boudreaux, an economist at George Mason Universitys Mercatus Center and proprietor of the indispensable blog Cafe Hayek.
He has good news: You are as rich as John D. Rockefeller. Richer, actually.
Some historians estimate that on September 29, 1916, a surge in the price of Rockefellers shares of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey made him Americas first billionaire. Others say he never reached this milestone and that Henry Ford was the first. Never mind. If Rockefeller was the first, his billion was worth $23 billion in todays dollars. Boudreaux asks if you would accept this bargain: You can be as rich as Rockefeller was in 1916 if you consent to live in 1916.
Boudreaux says that if you had Rockefellers riches back then, you could have had a palatial home on Fifth Avenue, another overlooking the Pacific, and a private island if you wished. Of course, going to and from the coasts in your private but un-air-conditioned railroad car would be time-consuming and less than pleasant. And communicating with someone on the other coast would be a time-consuming chore.
Commercial radio did not arrive until 1920, and 1916 phonographs would lacerate 2017 sensibilities, as would 1916s silent movies. If in 1916 you wanted Thai curry, chicken vindaloo, or Vietnamese pho, you could go to the phone hanging on your wall and ask the operator (direct dialing began in the 1920s) to connect you to restaurants serving those dishes. The fact that there were no such restaurants would not bother you because in 1916 you had never heard of those dishes, so you would not know what you were missing.
If in 1916 you suffered from depression, bipolar disorder, a sexually transmitted disease, or innumerable other ailments treatable in 2017, you also would not know that you were missing antibiotics and the rest of modern pharmacology. And dont even think about getting a 1916 toothache. You can afford state-of-the-art 1916 dentures, and probably will need them. Your arthritic hips and knees? Hobble along until you cannot hobble any more, then buy a wheelchair. Birth control in 1916 will be primitive, unreliable, and not conducive to pleasure.
As a 1916 billionaire, you would be materially worse off than a 2017 middle-class American; an unhealthy 1916 billionaire would be much worse off than an unhealthy 2017 American of any means.
You could enjoy a smattering of early jazz, but rock n roll is decades distant, and Netflix and Google even more so. Your pastimes would be limited, but you could measure the passage of time on the finest Swiss watch. It, however, would be less accurate than todays Timex or smartphone.
As a 1916 billionaire, you would be materially worse off than a 2017 middle-class American; an unhealthy 1916 billionaire would be much worse off than an unhealthy 2017 American of any means. Intellectually, your 1916 range of cultural choices would be paltry compared with todays. And your moral tranquility might be disturbed by the contrast between your billionaires life and that of the normal American.
In 2015, a Bureau of Labor Statistics paper described the life of workers in 1915. More than half (52.4 percent) of the 100 million Americans were younger than 25, life expectancy at birth was 54.5 years (today, 78.8), and fewer than 5 percent of Americans were 65 or older. One in ten babies died in the first year of life (today, one in 168). A large majority of births were not in hospitals (today, fewer than 1 percent).
In 1915, only about 14 percent of people ages 1417 were in high school, an estimated 18 percent ages 25 and older had completed high school, and nearly 75 percent of women working in factories had left school before eighth grade. There were four renters for every homeowner, partly because mortgages (usually for just five to seven years) required down payments of 4050 percent of the purchase price.
Fewer than one-third of homes had electric lights. Small electric motors the first Hoover vacuum cleaner appeared in 1915 were not yet lightening housework. Iceboxes, which were the norm until after World War II, were all that 1915 had: General Motors Frigidaire debuted in 1918.
So, thank Boudreaux for making you think about this: How large would your net worth have to be to get you to swap the life you are living in hellhole America for what that money could buy in 1916?
George Will is a Pulitzer Prizewinning syndicated columnist. © 2017 Washington Post Writers Group
“The fact that there were no such restaurants would not bother you because in 1916 you had never heard of those dishes, so you would not know what you were missing.”
What, people can’t read? If someone was rich in 1916/17, they might very well have heard of such dishes because of their travels, talking to other people who had traveled, etc. Other people might have known about the dishes simply by reading about them in publications.
Geo. Will tries again to write something worth reading, and fails.
Money is power. A billion dollars is an awful lot of it, in 1916 or now.
In 1916 the top tax rate was 15%, most people only paid 2%, and you could order guns in a catalog and have them sent through the mail.
In 1916, you weren’t forced to pay for welfare for 50% of the country.
I’m sure there are plenty more benefits....
If you’re an old man and your hobbies are eating out and watching entertainment George Will is right. If you’re a normal person who enjoys life, he’s wrong.
I saw something like this piece several months ago. I think the author is off-base. Being able to get many modern things (sometimes only in very small quantities) is not a sign of wealth on our part as individuals. It is a sign of the collective wealth of our society reflected in diversified specialization. A “billionaire” a century ago might not have had as easy access to Chinese food as we do but if he wanted he could have imported a Chinese cook and an entire staff to serve it to him 365 days a year. I can’t do that. Yes, his railway car had no air conditioning and my car does. The difference is he could own the entire railway and literally shift rail traffic to make his trip easier. I can’t get other cars off the road and I sure as hell don’t own the road. That’s the difference between being a REAL owner of wealth and being a mere taster of wealth.
George Will is dead to me. He has nothing to say that I would waste 2 minutes reading.
George Will joins MSNBC and NBC News. I guess he’ll fit right in.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/332335-george-will-joins-msnbc-nbc-news-report
George Will wasting ink and server space again.....................
See post #9.
No Colt 45 or 357 magnums
” I think the author is off-base. “
So you would want to go back to 1916? I think not.
Two words:
Evelyn.
Nesbit.
His point is invalid.
No,not this time.Yes,it's true that this piece isn't of vital importance but it's interesting (to me,at least) to ponder the points made.
Sorry, the colt 45 did exist in 1916. And back then it was actually a good gun.
Gatling guns and Maxims were. I’d sprung for a few if I had the means then.
Otherwise titled: “Why You Should Be Happy In Your Peasantry”
“So you would want to go back to 1916? I think not.”
As a billionaire? Yeah, I might be willing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.