Rich then or poor now. What would be better?

Great Debates
1

Say you could be born into obscene wealth…hundreds of millions. And be mega rich for your entire life. The only catch is, you have to be born 100 years prior to when you actually were. (For me that would be 1885). The other option is, to be born when you were, but live in the lowest form of poverty for your entire life.
What would be better?
Do modern conveniences, medical advances, life expectancies, etc., make the life of a very poor person today better than that of last century’s rich person, or would it still be better to have been rich 100 years ago.

What about 200 years ago?
500 years?

At what point could we say that it’s better to be dirt poor now than very wealthy then?

2

Life for the rich in 1885 was not too bad you know. It was hardly the stone age, take away TV and modern transportation and communication and things were very similar. J.D. Rockefeller for example lived a nice life. No income tax too. :wink:

When you say “dirt poor” do you mean rural TN mountains poor? Mali poor? Calcutta ghetto poor? Do you mean urban subsidized housing but still have a color TV poor? I don’t think you would catch Henry VIII trading the throne for a one bedroom in a housing project, even if it had cable.

This is a tough question, especially since things like development are not always linear, but I am going to come down on the side of the ultra rich/powerful in any civilized country throughout history live “better” (whatever that means) than the poorest poor in the world today.

3

Ultra rich a hundred years ago, no contest. The main losses would be in terms of technology, and much of those would be more than compensated for by the proper application of wealth.

Entertainment: A person in “the lowest form of poverty” today (homeless people begging for enough to be able to eat) doesn’t have access to things like going to the movies, tv’s and stereos–modern entertainment conveniences–anyway. A rich person 100 years ago in any large city would have had easy access to the theater, symphony, books, etc. Rich long ago wins out easily.

Transportation: Rich 100 years ago has access to luxury cars on trains and ocean liners, which much outweighs walking or hitchhiking, perhaps on occasion being able to afford a bus ride.

Medical treatment: This would seem to be the biggest modern advantage, but the poorest of the poor really have no access to health care other than the emergency room in an emergency. Having access to a healthy diet, luxury housing, and some, if limited, health care wins out.

Power: The ultra rich have more power than the ultra poor. Having power leads to many more opportunities to live a fulfilling life than not having it.

There really isn’t any contest here. There are modern conveniences I’d miss if I were transported to 100 years ago, but I’d miss them today if I were suddenly homeless and begging for change to eat.

However, had I been born 100 years ago, as the OP suggests, I wouldn’t miss any modern conveniences, never having experienced them in the first place, while being poor nowadays comes with the lack of conveniences and luxuries, but with the knowledge that they are readily available to others.

Rich 100 years ago, no contest at all.

4

As to 200 years ago, or 500, I’d still have to say that I’d prefer very rich then to very poor now. Most of my previous arguments still apply in these situations.

However, if one were to compare middle class (for purposes of argument, I’ll define this as an income at the 50th percentile in the USA) now to rich (99th percentile) 100 or 200 years ago, I’d say that modern technology might shift the answer to the more modern age. I’d still have to go with rich 100 years ago being better, as a person born then would, literally, not know what they were missing. People watching “The Great Train Robbery” at the turn of the century were thrilled with it; now it’s nothing more than a historical curiosity. This does not, however, invalidate the experience the audience had at the time. The same goes for tv, microwaves, telephones, and other things we say we couldn’t do without. People who never had experience with such things would never miss them any more than we miss two-way-wrist tv’s or immersive 3d movies projected completely around us–you can’t miss something that you’ve never had.

5

I know it’s only a thought experiment and as such you get to specify whatever conditions you like, but in reality the above would not necessarily be true; individuals in the modern world (well, in some cultures anyway) have the opportunity to improve their own situation; not limitless opportunity perhaps and not equal opportunity, but certainly more than they would have 100 or 200 years ago.

‘Modern times and poor’ please and I’ll then I’ll try to change the ‘poor’ bit.

6

Considering that I was delivered via C-section, I think my life in any other time would have been rather short… I would vote for being poor in America. If we’re talking global, and me surviving birth, I’d take the past any day, though.

7

Put me down as another vote for the really rich one hundred years ago. The only modern conveniences that I might be missing are the internet, television, movies and air conditioning. Which depending on the level of poverty implied in the OP, I might still be missing.

All other conveniences such as microwaves, and other home conveniences wouldn’t make a difference because as a wealthy person one hundred years ago, I would have someone who would be doing it all for me. A rich man, one hundred years ago would never have to clean anything, iron anything or cook. Even regarding the heat, I would probably spend the hot months of the year somewhere where the weather was a great deal more tolerable.

I believe that they had telephones one hundred years ago, so that would not be missing.

8

If I were born 100 years ago, I wouldn’t have known what things I would miss out on, so there’s no contest. Rich then.

9

OTOH, if you were born poor in the modern times, you would not be able to enjoy much of what technological advances offer anyway.

10

I would want to be born rich a hundred years ago (preferably more than a hundred years, but whatever). I have always wanted to live in another time period. However, I can see that living a hundred years ago would have conflicted with my personality a bit…I’m not a prim and proper person. I also have a tendency to end up in the arms of my guy friends…a chaste kiss back then would have been considered atrocious, the way I am, I probably would have been disowned. I also would not like the idea of arranged marriages, or of being expected to have children. I do, however, love the clothes from back then. I also would not like to be poor.

11

Um, what about such “conveniences” as antibiotics, vaccines, safe anesthetics, modern surgical techniques, etc. Only supergnat has touched on this, and only tangentially, but modern medicine puts me strongly in the “poor now” category. Looking solely at life expectancy figures, the poor today - even the Calcutta poor - have a better likelihood of living to a decent age than the rich of 100 years ago did.

Face it, if you’re sick or injured, even limited access to modern drugs is infinitely preferable to “You need penecillin? Sorry, we haven’t invented that yet.”

Sua

12

Sua Sponte,

For me those are conveniences that I’ve never had to use. I’ve only been in a hospital five times. Once, to be born, and the subsequent times to visit sick relatives. I didn’t give much consideration to the advances that have been made in the medicine in the past hundred years.

Regarding the average life expectancy of the Calcutta poor vs. the rich of one hundred years ago, do you have a cite? Depending on the level of poverty specified in the OP, you might not have access to doctors anyhow.

I’ve only seen what absolute poverty looks like a few times when I was in Brazil. They suffer from improper diet and inadequate health care. I would guess that a rich person one hundred years ago, would be far more likely to live a longer life.

13

—For me those are conveniences that I’ve never had to use.—

You’d think so, but are you sure? Modern medicine doesn’t have to treat you directly to benefit you. By wiping out various of the nastier and more contagious diseases (the non-sexualy transmitted ones, at least), it made you much less likely to ever contract them from others. How about vaccinations (especially tetnis?) You probably don’t appreciate modern dentistry enough either.

And that doesn’t even get into the insurance they provide that makes all sorts of different things much less risky (in terms of how severely a potential injury might affect you)

Also, how old are you?

14

:smack:

99% of this is not true - or at least exagerated.

And before the Victorian era (which 100 years ago, 1902, would not be), things were even less strict.

Just the history fanatic chiming in.

The OP poses a good question ~ I’d say rich a hundread years ago. I’d adapt well. :slight_smile:

15

Yep. Though the Victorians certainly frowned upon extra-martial sex, they were actually in some respects much more open than even we are in discussing the mechanics of sex matter of factly (among married couples of course) in public. The Puritans were even more open about it, in some ways largely out of necessity (when the entire family lives in a one room house, its not like you can conceal sex from the children, and anyway they didn’t view children the way we do today). One famous example records how a church congregation publically scolded a man for not sleeping with his wife enough.

16

I’m not arguing against the benefits of modern medicine. Modern medicine has greatly expanded the lives of most people. Some of the illnesses that are simple to treat now, would have been fatal a few hundred years ago. My query is how much access to modern medicine do the very poor have.

The OP was asking whether we would rather be fabulously wealthy in 1902, or live in the lowest form of poverty today. What I am arguing is that those who live in that form of poverty are probably not going to have access to decent medical care as well.

17

Choosing the extremes makes this kind of a boring debate. Certainly I’d choose ridiculously rich 100 years ago vs grinding poverty today. But remove the extremes and we’ve got a different question. As a single-income middle-class programmer living in a pretty high cost-of-living area, I still live a life that would be envied by probably 99% of all the people who ever lived, at least in terms of food, housing, security, travel, access to medical care, central heating, and hours per day worked. (And am I grateful? Heck no – I spend a lot of time whining.)

18

Finagle, I agree. By choosing the extreme “lowest level of poverty”, the purpose of having it in the current time is lost, as someone who is actually in the lowest form of poverty today wouldn’t have access to the technology and advances that make the present day distinct from 100 years ago. (I’m thinking on a worldwide sense, here, but even lowest-of-the-low poverty in the West would apply.) Thus, the answer is simple; be rich earlier, because absolute poverty always stinks.

19

“Looking solely at life expectancy figures, the poor today - even the Calcutta poor - have a better likelihood of living to a decent age than the rich of 100 years ago did.”
Hmm do you have a cite for this especially for the Calcutta poor (or in general the poor in the Third World)?

Besides life expectancy is only one aspect of quality of life. A comfortable life of say 40 years would be far preferable to living in a hut without clean water or adequate food for 50 years.

If we are talking about rich and Third World poor I don’t think there is any comparison. I doubt that too many people if they personally experienced life in a Calcutta slum for a few days would choose that life over that of Rockefeller a 100 years ago.

Comparison with the poor in rich countries is more difficult but I would still choose the rich life for the some of the same reasons other posters have stated.

I think a more interesting comparison would be between a middle class life today and a rich life of 100 years ago. I would probably choose the middle class life today and I suspect many others would as well. That is a remarkable indication of the general progress made in the last 100 years.

20

I’d take rich 100 years ago (1859) PROVIDED I get to remain a white male. No racist/sexist bias, but it WAS easier for the above combo to succeed.

Too young for the Civil War, too old for the Span-Am.

Modern industry in it’s infancy…lots of room for investment and invention.

Vast parts of the still unexplored and ripe for exploitation by a young man of pluck and vision…