Would you rather be middle class in 2013 or peasant in 1813?

[Teal Lantern]

Wow. ALL of you would choose A/C, shopping malls and X-Box, over freedom and manhood?

Today, you can have whichever of those two versions defines manhood for you + many other options.
In 1813, no such choice.

Try this, just for a taste ...
Pull your main electrical breaker and leave the power off for 120 hours (5 full days).
Use only hot water that was heated by stove.
Use only candles, oil lamps, and daylight to see by.

Note your thoughts, as the days go by.
On day 6, power on and tell us what you think.

[Winston]

Dude,
You forgot some important things. In 1813, women in America were feminine and took a man's hand when they got out of a stage coach. They don't do that today. Also, cost of living in the US is far higher today. Housing prices are a scam. In 1920 you could buy a house for $900.

Also, since we were lied to about how bad the Middle Ages was, how do you know you aren't being lied to about life in the early 19th Century?

See here:
viewtopic.php?t=17605
viewtopic.php?t=18603

We are also lied to about how bad life is in foreign countries, so how do you know they are telling the truth about the early 19th Century?

[Repatriate]

We are also lied to about how bad life is in foreign countries, so how do you know they are telling the truth about the early 19th Century?

LOL Winston,


Nigga please. You'd be forced to scramble around on a dangerous mountain planting dynamite to blow holes into the cliffside so the railroad tycoons could lay down tracks. Then each evening you could look forward to resting in your shanty hovel for a bowl of cold leftovers and gruel that the white men didn't want after they finished harassing you and beating your ass. The only thing you could look forward to is maybe the next redneck town where you might cop a bit of dirty opium to escape your mortal hell and dream of 200 years into the future where you can actually get laid and have kids.

You're so naive sometime that it's comical.

[Rock]

Dude,
You forgot some important things. In 1813, women in America were feminine and took a man's hand when they got out of a stage coach. They don't do that today. Also, cost of living in the US is far higher today. Housing prices are a scam. In 1920 you could buy a house for $900.

Also, since we were lied to about how bad the Middle Ages was, how do you know you aren't being lied to about life in the early 19th Century?

See here:
viewtopic.php?t=17605
viewtopic.php?t=18603

We are also lied to about how bad life is in foreign countries, so how do you know they are telling the truth about the early 19th Century?

Please Winston, please! In 1920, you could buy a house for $900 but what do you think the average salary was back then? Inflation balances out - expenses go up but so do wages. U really think you would have been more comfortable back then? OK, let's send you back into the same socio-economic category that you are now and see. And you can even be white. But you have to engage in back breaking manual labor. There was no Internet back then for you to collect money from lol.

My family has a lot of personal recorded history going back into the 1800s, especially on my dad's side. We have journals from the early 1900s, high school yearbooks from like 1912, newspaper clippings, lots of photos, Bibles, the works. The bank my relatives were involved in actually survived the Great Depression, the only one in my town to do so. I have a very good idea about some of my relatives from as far back as late 1800s, what their life was like, how tall they grew, how long they lived, how tough their life was, etc. I also know a lot from my grand parents and great grandparents who in turn were told a lot from their grandparents too.

Winston, your couch potato comfort loving ass wouldn't survive that very long. And as for your romantic ideas about women, You would most likely need to stick with first girl you got serious with. So you would now be in a marriage with a girl around your age and your kids running a farm or perhaps small business in the city. Please give the conspiracy theories a rest on this one. Your ass would most likely be about dead at your current age if u had been born in like 1880.

[Winston]

If life was so bad in America in the 1800's, then why were so many immigrants moving here? lol

Rock, sorry but inflation and salaries don't balance out. It's harder to buy a house now than it was in 1920. Prices are not all proportionate. It does not all balance out in proportion.

In the Old West, one could build their own house. Laws weren't as strict.

Also, comfort and luxury does not equal happiness. Japan and the USA are comfortable but people do not have happy faces.

Also, food back then didn't have processed ingredients, preservatives and GMO's.

And shops did not consist of soulless suburban architecture.

Doctor fees were not as outrageous as they are now.

Saloons had saloon girls you could sleep with for a low price too.

You could meet a girl at a barn dance back then. They had real social events, unlike today.

Neighbors knew each other back then too. Society was not as isolating.

I understand your point, but you don't see all the factors either. There were advantages back then that you aren't counting. You guys are also too one-sided. Modern society is not all a win-win with no consequences.

Again, how do you know we haven't been lied to about history? Lies are more common than you think.

History books and films also show America in the 1800's as having a booming economy and expansion.

I've watched a lot of films about the Old West. It looks very romantic with fresh nature and scenery. But of course, most of you don't care about nature for some reason. I'm the only one here who is truly passionate about nature and has spent 3 months traveling in the beautiful Southwest nature. You city guys can't understand.

Also, if I lived in the Old West and did more physical labor, I might be in better shape too. I might also ride horses on the ranch everyday and have fun in saloons with my buddies at night. Who's to say I wouldn't be happier? You don't know that.

[Winston]

In the 1800's, you could go to these places to meet women, instead of being isolated in the suburbs and bitching online.








You could also dress up like this in the 19th Century, and dance with feminine elegant ladies too. People dressed better and nicer back then.

[Rock]

If life was so bad in America in the 1800's, then why were so many immigrants moving here? lol

Rock, sorry but inflation and salaries don't balance out. It's harder to buy a house now than it was in 1920. Prices are not all proportionate. It does not all balance out in proportion.

In the Old West, one could build their own house. Laws weren't as strict.

Also, comfort and luxury does not equal happiness. Japan and the USA are comfortable but people do not have happy faces.

Also, food back then didn't have processed ingredients, preservatives and GMO's.

And shops did not consist of soulless suburban architecture.

Doctor fees were not as outrageous as they are now.

Saloons had saloon girls you could sleep with for a low price too.

You could meet a girl at a barn dance back then. They had real social events, unlike today.

Neighbors knew each other back then too. Society was not as isolating.

I understand your point, but you don't see all the factors either. There were advantages back then that you aren't counting. You guys are also too one-sided. Modern society is not all a win-win with no consequences.

Again, how do you know we haven't been lied to about history? Lies are more common than you think.

History books and films also show America in the 1800's as having a booming economy and expansion.

I've watched a lot of films about the Old West. It looks very romantic with fresh nature and scenery. But of course, most of you don't care about nature for some reason. I'm the only one here who is truly passionate about nature and has spent 3 months traveling in the beautiful Southwest nature. You city guys can't understand.

Also, if I lived in the Old West and did more physical labor, I might be in better shape too. I might also ride horses on the ranch everyday and have fun in saloons with my buddies at night. Who's to say I wouldn't be happier? You don't know that.

Hmm, how do u know it's harder to buy a house now for the average family than at a certain time in the past? What stats are you basing that on? And what was a typical house in 1920s compared to one today. My family owns some houses built at the turn of the century on our farms. Even though they've been maintained, they totally suck compared to houses built in the 90s or even 50s. You couldn't pay me to live in a regular house built in early 1900s. BTW, percentage of old vs. new housing stock is one of the reasons I much prefer living in more modern areas of USA such as SW or Florida vs. NYC, Boston, or rust belt.

Now my dear Winston, do you realize that in the 1930s, people actually starved in USA in significant numbers??? Talk about owning a house. How bout buying food lol. Actual unemployment reached over one-third for a time. How does 2009 crises look compared to that shit. And my impressions of these times is being informed by personal family history complete with first and second hand accounts, not the textbooks you claim are totally fictional. I'm sorry Winston but my family members were not part of some grand conspiracy to fool future generations.

BTW, if you want physical labor, then go do physical labor. You have a choice. You could go work on a ranch or do yard work for hire. Back then, u didn't have much choice but now you sure do. If I had a one-way time machine to send you back, I bet if you researched it enough, you would bail just like you bailed on going to Thailand or China. Happier Abroad, perhaps but Happier 100 years ago, I don't think so.

[Winston]

I also look better in 19th Century clothing than I do in modern middle class suburban attire. Here are some images of me wearing 19th Century clothing in theatre plays. I enjoyed wearing this kind of attire a lot. It was stylish and elegant. I felt like I wore it in a past life too.

[Falcon]

TIME had published an article about this topic a while ago. I first read this article in print, when my parents still subscribed to print versions of TIME.

If Life Is Good, Why Do the Old Days Look Better?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 09,00.html


The book the article was talking about was:

The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse
Gregg Easterbrook



But also, the world was comparatively much more violent back then, believe it or not.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
Steven Pinker



A better comparison might be the 2010's vs. the 1950's.

[Winston]

Rock,
History is not one of your areas of specialty. You don't even watch History Channel all day like I do.

You make two critical mistakes here.

1. You assume that the system is fair and that salaries and prices rise in equal proportions. Let's do the math:

If a house cost $900 in 1920, and today it costs about $200,000, then the difference between then and now is about 200 times.

If the average salary per day in 1920 was $5, and today it's about $100, then the difference is about 20 times.

Obviously, housing prices going up 200 times vs. salaries going up 20 times is NOT equal proportion.

These figures are just estimates. If you want more exact figures, ask Momopi to Google them. But the point is, the rises in prices and salaries are not equally proportionate.

What you forget is that those who run the system want to keep everyone in perpetual debt. They want you to spend your whole life paying off a mortgage and nowadays, paying off college debt too. That's why the system tries to keep you in slavery. Didn't you know that? It's common knowledge by now. Why did you forget it?

2. You also assume that everyone in the 19th Century could only do physical labor jobs. If I lived on the East Coast, I could have been a banker, writer, journalist, or something that involved paperwork and education. You forgot about that.

Mark Twain made a living as a writer back then too. Do you know who he is? You generalize too much.

I don't know what's in your family albums. I can't verify that. Why don't you post info from credible sources instead that can be verified?

Also, the title of this thread is a bogus comparison. It's not a worthy comparison, so why ask it? Why not phrase the question like this:

Would you rather be middle class in 2013 or a wealthy aristocrat in 1813?
Would you rather be middle class in 2013 or a Roman Emperor in Ancient Rome?

That would give you more to think about. Why does it have to be a peasant in 1813? That's stupid. Peasants are supposed to be from the Middle Ages anyway.

[Rock]

I also look better in 19th Century clothing than I do in modern middle class suburban attire. Here are some images of me wearing 19th Century clothing in theatre plays. I enjoyed wearing this kind of attire a lot. It was stylish and elegant. I felt like I wore it in a past life too.

When were those taken? They look good.

[Winston]

The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse
Gregg Easterbrook

That's a good point Falcon. You see a bigger picture than Rock and Repatriate do with their narrow left brained mentality. That's remarkable considering that you are a lot younger than them.

Perhaps the big question here is:

Are people who are spoiled with more things happier than poor people who are not spoiled?

Example: Are spoiled Americans who consume a lot, are snotty and uptight, easily annoyed and angry, and stressed out from work HAPPIER than poor Filipinos or Mexicans who don't have much but smile a lot for no reason, just for the heck of it?

It's hard to say. I'm not taking sides here, just saying that the issue is not that black and white as Rock and Repatriate make it out to be.

I'm not saying I prefer living in the 19th Century either. Just saying that it's not that black and white.

[Falcon]

Keep in mind that that the 1800's were extremely difficult times for Africa, South Asia, and East Asia, if we put Victorian Britain aside. The poverty we see today simply does not compare to the huge famines back then where millions upon millions would die of hunger and war.

In 100 years, China had drastically improved from total chaos to a very functional country where mass starvation and catastrophic revolts don't happen regularly. Qing Dynasty China was a complete disaster, with millions of people starving while rebellions raged on constantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Re ... Death_toll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_C ... E2%80%9379

Meanwhile, King Leopold turned the Belgian Congo into a living hell as millions of Congolese perished under his rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free ... n_disaster

[Winston]

I also look better in 19th Century clothing than I do in modern middle class suburban attire. Here are some images of me wearing 19th Century clothing in theatre plays. I enjoyed wearing this kind of attire a lot. It was stylish and elegant. I felt like I wore it in a past life too.

When were those taken? They look good.

Thanks. Those photos were taken in two periods. The Old West attire photos were taken in Virginia City, NV in 2001 when I did a magic show there. The wedding play where I was with a bride were taken in Bellingham, WA in 1998 or 1999. I had fun during those plays, but rehearsals were exhausting.

[Rock]

Rock,
History is not one of your areas of specialty. You don't even watch History Channel all day like I do.

You make two critical mistakes here.

1. You assume that the system is fair and that salaries and prices rise in equal proportions. Let's do the math:

If a house cost $900 in 1920, and today it costs about $200,000, then the difference between then and now is about 200 times.

If the average salary per day in 1920 was $5, and today it's about $100, then the difference is about 20 times.

Obviously, housing prices going up 200 times vs. salaries going up 20 times is NOT equal proportion.

These figures are just estimates. If you want more exact figures, ask Momopi to Google them. But the point is, the rises in prices and salaries are not equally proportionate.

What you forget is that those who run the system want to keep everyone in perpetual debt. They want you to spend your whole life paying off a mortgage and nowadays, paying off college debt too. That's why the system tries to keep you in slavery. Didn't you know that? It's common knowledge by now. Why did you forget it?

2. You also assume that everyone in the 19th Century could only do physical labor jobs. If I lived on the East Coast, I could have been a banker, writer, journalist, or something that involved paperwork and education. You forgot about that.

Mark Twain made a living as a writer back then too. Do you know who he is? You generalize too much.

I don't know what's in your family albums. I can't verify that. Why don't you post info from credible sources instead that can be verified?

Also, the title of this thread is a bogus comparison. It's not a worthy comparison, so why ask it? Why not phrase the question like this:

Would you rather be middle class in 2013 or a wealthy aristocrat in 1813?
Would you rather be middle class in 2013 or a Roman Emperor in Ancient Rome?

That would give you more to think about. Why does it have to be a peasant in 1813? That's stupid. Peasants are supposed to be from the Middle Ages anyway.

1. I'm not assuming the system is fair. Salaries and prices don't always rise in equal proportion. And yes, we did have an unprecedented housing bubble through much of the first decade of 2000s. But current price levels have corrected to back to normalized territory. You can look at Case Schiller or other housing data to get an idea of what I mean. Here are a couple charts.

http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.tw ... -1900.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-hous ... rds-2009-2

Moreover a house built today, is on average, a much nicer place to live than a new house was 100 years ago. So your comparison is somewhat distorted - not like for like. Similarly, cars today are of much better quality than cars built 60 years ago.

Comparing costs of thing today to 50 or 100 years ago is complicated. Some things have gotten a lot cheaper in real terms while others have gotten more dear. Things which have clearly skyrocketed in real terms which come to my immediate mind are health care and uni level education. Many basic necessitates such as clothing, food, and shelter (rent) have probably gotten a lot cheaper or at least not increased.

As for buying a house, it's also very market dependent. For example, I can go to Lehigh Acres in Florida and pick-up a very decent 2 bed/2 bath modern home on a half acre lot for like US$50,000. It's an ok area and convenient enough.

2. You know me personally so you either trust me or not. I'm telling you about my family but I'm not going back to USA to dig up thousands of family photos and docs to post online publicly. Who does that kind of thing anyway besides maybe you?

3. Percentage of Americans who made a living from some sort of manual labor was very high 100 years ago; not so today.