Posted on 05/08/2017 8:00:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well,you're surely superior to me because,apart from knowing that *my* family from earlier generations lived *very* difficult lives both in Europe and upon arrival here in the US,it never occurred to me to ponder how the lives of today's middle class compared to the lives of the rich of 100 years ago.
Stupid article. We had international travel back then, and long before.
Morally? Absolutely not.Physically? Well,looking at my current age and the age of my siblings and considering that we're all in good (if not great) health and knowing that 5 of my father's 6 aunts and uncles (on his father's side) died before their 23rd birthday I'd say that *we're* physically healthier.
MUCH healthier.
Were the Good Old Days That Good? NYT 2005,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/business/yourmoney/were-the-good-old-days-that-good.html?_r=0
RE: We had international travel back then, and long before.
How long did it take for the 2016 Billionaire to travel from New York to London compared to the average Middle Class today?
“Sorry, the colt 45 did exist in 1916. And back then it was actually a good gun.”
If NRx is talking about Colt’s Government Model autoloading pistol, selected as US Pistol M1911, only five years earlier than George Will’s comparison year, it is true that Colt’s began making them for sale to the civilian market almost immediately.
And while it was “better” in terms of feed reliability than other autoloaders of that day, it was still much less reliable than a revolver (probability of a successful second shot 1/5000, revolver v. autoloader). Not until the 1980s did autoloaders begin catching up.
In 1916, “Colt 45” meant the 45 rimmed revolver round introduced in 1873. As an interim measure, in 1909 the US War Dept purchased some 30,000 double-action revolvers of Colt’s New Service pattern. Officially designated US Revolver M1909, it chambered what we now call 45 Long Colt. Rims were a little bigger than the original.
Even loaded with black powder, 45 Long Colt handily outperformed the 45 rimless cartridge we now call 45 ACP. And it’s still routinely available, in revolvers of double action and single action configuration.
Yup,we did.But consider my family's travel history:
Paternal grandmother: born in Ireland,came to the US (NYC to be precise) at the age of 6 months.Immediately moved to Connecticut for a short period and then on to Boston,where she lived for the rest of her life.During her life after arrival in Boston she visited her daughter in Vermont several times,having passed through New Hampshire to get there.
So her 73 year long lifetime travel history was: Ireland,New York (a few hours),Connecticut,Massachusetts,New Hampshire and Vermont.
Her son,my Dad,traveled regularly to Europe and Asia on business and to Europe with my Mom on vacation.
I've traveled frequently to Europe,a half dozen times to various points in Asia,three times to Africa,three times to Australia and twice to South America.
And my Mom,Dad and I were/are all never anything more than "middle class".
OK,fair enough...I never knew that.So this *particular* topic (progress regarding the typical standard of living) is new to me but not to you and others.
Will was obviously writing for folks like me who don't get out much.
That’s early to pass away. There were some flu types that killed a lot of people at the turn of the century.
On the other hand if you look at early pictures everyone is pretty think where now we have a lot of very heavy people. I wonder if we have reached a peak and are starting to decline in terms of physical health.
1916 - Steamship travel. First class vs. steerage.
2016 - Commercial jet. First class vs. economy.
My family...both sides...were *very* poor when they left Ireland (125+ years ago) and when they arrived in Boston they found themselves in the poorest part of the city.A hundred years ago the Irish were the n*ggers of Boston,blacks not having yet arrived from the South.My Dad's older brother used to tell stories of routinely seeing signs in the windows of employers "No Irish Need Apply".
Poor housing conditions,poor nutrition,no access to health care (thanks to poverty) were the culprits for us...and others as well.
On the other hand if you look at early pictures everyone is pretty think where now we have a lot of very heavy people. I wonder if we have reached a peak and are starting to decline in terms of physical health.
I think you're right on that.But obesity is most assuredly a "disease" of prosperity.I've done some traveling in Third World parts of the world and I guarantee that you don't see obesity there.As for a decline in health...if that's actually happening most Americans have nobody to blame but themselves,IMO.
"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"
You appear quite petty, elitist and preachy. Very good will. Going for the full on libtard?
I had a conversation like this the other night at the local ice cream parlor; WBill Jr. wanted to talk about what it would be like to be rich - all the "stuff" we could have, and so on.
I told him that I had a great kid, a wife that I was still head over heels for, and I'd just eaten a bowl of ice cream. How could life get much better than that?
RE: Well, the relatively poor travel just as fast as the rich in either 1916 or 2016. The poor just do not travel as often as the rich or in the same comfort.
_______________________________
Well, the article is not comparing middle class in 2017 with rich in 2017, nor is it comparing middle class in 1916 with rich in 1916.
This article is comparing middle class in 2017 with very rich in 1916 and then asking the question -— who really is better off overall in terms of the necessities and other luxuries of life?
“Intellectually, your 1916 range of cultural choices would be paltry compared with today’s”
Kim Kardashian’s rear end could not be reached for comment.
The fundamental import of the article, IMHO, is the success ofAmerican socialists style themselves “progressives,” and yet they oppose us so-called “conservatives” at every turn with their environmental-whackoism which is in a real sense conservative to the point of regressiveness.
- Article 1 Section 8.:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
“Conservatives” who promote “drill, baby, drill” are the actual progressives whose prescriptions are aimed at making goods more plentiful and cheaper.
And socialists’ nostrums which prevent economic progress are not limited to environmentalism, either. Scratch a Democrat and a proponent of wage and price controls will yell. But what is price control but reaction??? Free-market prices reflect the net effect on society and on individual people of changes - which may on net be positive changes - in conditions.
True - but then, it would still take that billionaire several days to make a transcontinental trip, and a week to travel across an ocean.Whereas the 2017 traveler of ordinary means can travel between any two cities in the world - granted, uncomfortably in coach - inside of two days.
You’re making my point, not arguing against it.
I'm not arguing against it...I'm adding depth and detail.That is,back 100 years ago international travel was almost exclusively done by the rich and was quite difficult,slow and uncertain...even for the rich.
OTOH,today people like me (neither rich nor poor by today's standards) can,and *do*,travel to far off places quickly,comfortably and as a matter of routine.
I think that's the basic premise of this piece...that in many ways the "middle class" of today live noticeably (and perhaps dramatically) more comfortable,more interesting,lives than did the "rich" of 100 years ago.
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.