Rich in '73 is such an obvious choice...
Why? I'd personally opt for middle class in 2011. No contest.
Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
11–20 of 72 posts
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#12Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a hacker and a child of the digital age, but I'd take the ability to have a 1ghz computer in my pocket connected to the entire world for a couple of hundred bucks, against paying thousands of dollars for a machine that probably can't even do truetype rendering.
It depends on whether this is a time-travel question, or a 'when would you rather be born' question. You wouldn't miss things that you don't know exist.
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#13"But I suppose everyone thinks their youth was some sort of Golden Age."
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#14Rich in 1900 is my choice. I'll bet the food then rocked - I'll just take one year's income at face value and the house I'm living in now, without 111 years of intervening decay. The rich industrialist who lived here in 1900 will have to find new digs. But no contest. I'd turn back that clock right now.
No sushi. No TV. Few interesting books. I could go on.
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#15Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a hacker and a child of the digital age, but I'd take the ability to have a 1ghz computer in my pocket connected to the entire world for a couple of hundred bucks, against paying thousands of dollars for a machine that probably can't even do truetype rendering.
It depends on whether this is a time-travel question, or a 'when would you rather be born' question. You wouldn't miss things that you don't know exist.
That doesn't seem relevant though - you have to judge 2011 against 1973 based on the conditions of the time.
In 500 BC I wouldn't know about vaccines so I wouldn't miss them, but that doesn't change the fact that living in a world with vaccines is a hell of a lot nicer.
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#16I'd rather be in the lowest 10% 100 years from now.
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#17Here's an interesting document from the US Census Bureau:
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-097.pdf
In 1973, 628,000 families made less than $1000.00 per year. That's $.48 per hour for a 40-hour week. 8.1 million (14.1%) families made less that $5000 that year.
In 2011, annual unemployment benefits for an individual can reach about $20,000. In 1973, that amount would rank in the upper 18% of all family incomes.
Making $50,000+ in 1973 would rank in the top 1%.
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#18Rich in 1900 is my choice. I'll bet the food then rocked - I'll just take one year's income at face value and the house I'm living in now, without 111 years of intervening decay. The rich industrialist who lived here in 1900 will have to find new digs. But no contest. I'd turn back that clock right now.
You'd change your mind very fast as soon as you needed a dentist...
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#19Rich in 1973, because people who were rich in 1973 are, by and large, even richer in 2011.
Re: Would You Rather Be Middle Class in 2011 or Rich in 1973?
#20Rich in 1973, because people who were rich in 1973 are, by and large, even richer in 2011.
they're also a lot closer to dead.