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

[mrmillersd]

Damn some people are more desperate then I thought. They would give up modern basics just to get with women more....

[Rock]

Under the tutelage of a father, or via apprenticeship, a son should be economically useful by age 15 if not long before. About the same time he wants a sex life! The two things kind of go together.

Today's society created debt-ridden boy-men who complete education in mid-twenties or later, and are then unable to earn a living sufficient to enjoy procreative sex and raise a family.

And in 19th century, toil on a farm, probably have sex with just one woman (his wife) when she wasn't too pregnant, and maybe survive to ripe age of late 50s/early 60s.

Today we are at bad point in cycle similar in ways to early 30s. So it's tougher now in many ways than it was 5-10 years ago, just like it was in 1933. But, in 30s, a huge percentage (like one-third) would find no work at all and some people actually did even starve. Today, you have a bunch of under employed recent grads. But at least they can survive. In fact, some of them live pretty comfy relative to what 1930s life was like for masses. And remember, people today have choices. A grad today can move abroad to a number of markets and make a decent living teaching English or establish some sort of web based business. 80 years ago, maybe you could busk, hop trains from town to town looking for work, or perhaps try to join a circus lol.

As for debt, it's a choice. Nobody forces you to use credit cards or take out a mortgage or student loan. I've never taken out debt except to do temporarily lever up high yielding bonds or do carry trades with currencies. My family owns their farmland and houses debt free even though they could borrow against them at very low interest rates if they wanted. We managed to make it through uni with no student debt by working summers and even part-time during the year. Again, its a choice. Today, people can get access to very cheap credit by historical standards whereas it was probably much harder to borrow a few decades ago even though rates were much higher. It's up to the individual or family to decide. If they make unwise choices, it's their own responsibility.

[Rock]

Yup. No need to go abroad to find a virgin bride. No need to outside your own language, culture or country.

And speaking of a farm, you would have owned some land free and clear (few mortgages back then). Imagine that.

Who owns those acres now?

Did most people die younger? Yes. No goddam nursing home internment needed. And they usually saw their grandkids before they died.

Yes, if your dream would have been to get a virgin bride and be done with it, where would you be now? Probably together with an old woman, probably the only one you ever had the privledge to be intimate with. Be careful what you wish for...

As for your question, "Who owns those acres now?" I can tell you that in my families case, we do! We have absolutely no mortgages or other encumbrances on them though there may have been a time many decades ago when we did lol. I'm from a big farming county in the midwest and my dad worked as a farm manager in a bank. A lot of people there are conservative and do not like to borrow. It's just the culture. But those who do wanna borrow are free to do so. That is the biggest business of a rural bank in a farming county. It's really up to the owner. Again, he has the luxury of choice which I think works for people who are wise and smart enough. Perhaps life in the olden days was best for more simple minded people but for those with emotional restraint and enough smarts and wisdom, a lot more is possible today.

About nursing homes, if you don't wanna go to one when you get to that stage, then choose something better. You have choices like people 100 years ago never had. You could go to Phils and hire a beautiful around the clock caregiver. You could become a wheelchair whoremonger in Pattaya or maybe even Madagascar. Or you could just say screw it and do yourself in. Don't you appreciate having choices?

[Cornfed]

Well that begs the question, if life was so much easier back then and food was so much better, why is it that a white male:

- in 1850 could only expect to make it to age 38 at birth or to age 60 if alive at 20;
- in 1900 could only expect to make it to age 42 at birth or to age 61 if alive at 20;

VS

- in 2004 could expect to make it to age 76 at birth or 77 if alive at 20?

Probably there is a certain mental element to this. White men had the common decency to f**k off when they had lived their useful lifespan, rather than squandering the family resources on their creature comforts while waiting around to see what kind of cancer they are going to get and then leaving everyone else with nothing like the selfish old cunts of today. Also, the current figures are a temporary spike brought about by antibiotics and such. The situation won't last and is likely to get much worse.

As for debt, it's a choice. Nobody forces you to use credit cards or take out a mortgage or student loan.

Collectively there is no choice because money is created as interest-bearing debt, so in no-one went into debt then there would be no money, and hence most people would starve. Individually there is often no choice because if you want to earn the money to survive you may need to purchase and education, vehicle to get to work and so on. If they want to own a house then most people will need a mortgage. The alternative is often to become a homeless bum, go in and out of jail etc. (Of course this often happens anyway now). Getting into debt in these circumstances is about as much of a choice as handing over your wallet to a robber holding a gun to your head is a choice.

[Rock]

That really wasn't the question was it?

If you ask most turkeys at the Tyson Foods or Purdue feedlot if they want to live in the wild and scratch out their own meals on their own, they would just look at you, say 'gobble gobble", and go back to eating what they're fed.

It's not about taking a vote.

The thread is about what each of US would do, not asking the turkeys.

Actually, the question is, "Would you rather be middle class in 2013 or peasant in 1813?". But I've answered more generously (to the pro olden days side) by comparing average middle class of 1813 to that today. Presumably, middle class had it better than so-called peasants beck in 1813.

My posts have been arguing pretty much in favor of 2013 middle class lifestyle which is directly relevant to the question. The turkey analogy is a red herring and doesn't make a lot of sense since turkey's don't even have capacity to make such choices.

There's not voting box in this post. But you gotta wonder, if you life was better back in 1813 and we can get a very good idea about it through recorded history, why wouldn't people vote to abandon modern life and return there if it was possible.

BTW, did you watch the recent movie "Lincoln". Talk about grim and depressing. And that's life in the White House lol. Imagine having to use kerosene lamps at night and smell the strong stench of horse shit whenever you went outside. Imagine trying to get somewhere on a rainy day when the muddy roads were flooded. OMG, do u really think you would be happy living like that?

[Rock]

Basic necessities (except clothing) have kept pace with gold. Gold price increase has far outpaced wages.

Are you sure? What data is that based on? For example, check out these charts on food prices:

http://mjperry.blogspot.tw/2008/08/over ... allen.html

Ford kinda made a car in the 20s like Bill Gates made a computer in the late 90s, a cut price mass marketed have to have item for most families. So it's kind of stretch classify a regular car as a luxury then or now. Try surviving where you live without one and you'll see what a necessity it is.

Cars ARE a necessity today. Five per family, in fact, if you have three kids in college. Cars were $500 in the past. What do they cost now? Do the math yourself.

Re gold, again no charts are needed. Gold was $20 an ounce throughout the nineteenth century. Now it's what? $1800? $1400? Sure it jumps around because the dollar is nonconvertible. But it's still a rough measure of real inflation. I currently figure a 75 fold increase in prices since 1900. The "nickel beer" should now cost $3.75 at the local tavern. About right.

Technology brings down costs and downsizes electronics, but electronics are necessities only today, not in the past.

Yes charts or some other sources are needed or else you are just talking out of your ass. You weren't alive then so your info has to come from somewhere. Why not cite it to back up your claims?

You talk about gold being consistently $20 per ounce in the nineteenth century. Maybe that's true though why not cite your source? But even it is true, so what? From 1850 to 1900, there was virtually no inflation in USA. A US$ in 1850 was worth about the same as it was in 1900. So minimal inflation and minimal gold price fluctuations, in line with what I posted earlier. By the way, how much did the quality of life improve between 1850-1900 given the scarcity of inflation and debt? Good question to ponder and research for those who think we have been destroyed by debt.

BTW, here's a data source for inflation between 1850-1900: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community ... st1800.cfm

[Rock]

As for debt, it's a choice. Nobody forces you to use credit cards or take out a mortgage or student loan.

Collectively there is no choice because money is created as interest-bearing debt, so in no-one went into debt then there would be no money, and hence most people would starve. Individually there is often no choice because if you want to earn the money to survive you may need to purchase and education, vehicle to get to work and so on. If they want to own a house then most people will need a mortgage. The alternative is often to become a homeless bum, go in and out of jail etc. (Of course this often happens anyway now). Getting into debt in these circumstances is about as much of a choice as handing over your wallet to a robber holding a gun to your head is a choice.

And what did people who could not find a job nor afford to eat do in the 1930s? You really think it was better then, that there were less homeless, etc?

[theprimebait]

You have choices like people 100 years ago never had. You could go to Phils and hire a beautiful around the clock caregiver. You could become a wheelchair whoremonger in Pattaya or maybe even Madagascar. Or you could just say screw it and do yourself in. Don't you appreciate having choices?

Could you imagine having sex with your old aged wife ?who wouldn't go to thailand and bang hookers,use drugs and inject HGH until they fall dead?

at that age,staying healthy doesn't matter.

[Repatriate]

Some of you guys have been brainwashed to think that the past was an unending oppression and outrage.

Life was much harder. I don't see how this is even a point for debate. Social mobility was very low and as far as women goes you didn't have many options. It wasn't all that uncommon for people to marry first cousins back in the 19th century. The mentality was akin to the developing world today. It wasn't until large populations shifted towards urban environments for industrial blue collar work that options opened up. Even that took a long time because exploitation of labor was so rampant during the 19th century.

Dropping populations today are clear evidence that times are hard. Though comfy, paradoxically.

The birthrates have dropped because the developed world has had less necessity to have children. Having many children is much more of a financial liability than in agrarian communities where young children would often succumb to illness. Plus you needed a large family to farm and do other things back then. This is true in all agriculture based societies.

[Renata]

This isn't 1813 or 2013 .. it's 1940 but it's a must share pic .. soldier leaves for war & his girl bids him farewell.

This was a pretty normal sight, it was known as the last kiss right before the train pulled off

[Cornfed]

And what did people who could not find a job nor afford to eat do in the 1930s? You really think it was better then, that there were less homeless, etc?

Kind of irrelevant to the topic, but my grandfather used to wander country lanes shooting pheasants, turkeys and other game to take back to his extended family, who owned land debt-free. You would get arrested for doing that these days.

[Repatriate]

And what did people who could not find a job nor afford to eat do in the 1930s? You really think it was better then, that there were less homeless, etc?

Kind of irrelevant to the topic, but my grandfather used to wander country lanes shooting pheasants, turkeys and other game to take back to his extended family, who owned land debt-free. You would get arrested for doing that these days.

In some parts of the country people would use this as a convenient excuse to blow you away for trespassing and carrying a firearm on their property.

[Jester]

How do you know Winston wouldnt have been one of the chinamen running an opium den or a brothel -- or both??

Winston doesn't have the hustler or gangster personality. He's a person who enjoys the good life. He's more likely to be the patron of a brothel or opium den than the one running it.

Ya got me there.



+1

[Jester]

Some of you guys have been brainwashed to think that the past was an unending oppression and outrage.

Not so.

People worked, ate, played, had sex, raised families. If they hadn't done okay, we wouldn't be here.

Dropping populations today are clear evidence that times are hard. Though comfy, paradoxically.

Eighteen-thirteen?
Before the Trail of Tears? Before the Civil War?

I'm fairly certain some people were more equal than others.

As I said above, I would rather be living under the Turkish Sultan, back in my ancestors town in Armenia, then watching modern America carry out a slow-kill genocide. We were not equal then.

Moreover, if I move overseas, in many countries I will again not be equal. Unable to work locally, own land, or even marry certain girls (eg Muslims). Plus pay for visa renewals etc. So no way will I be equal.

IMO equality is not so important.

Family is.

[Jester]

Wow. That is new even for HA paranoid conspiracists. Stuff like Slavery, forced chinese labor is only brain washing? there arent thousands of journals, photos, etc of those times?

It's not that those things didn't happen. The brainwashing is that you think those are the ONLY things that ever happened.

You're brainwashed.

Example:

Crow-killer, aka Jeremiah Johnson (of movie fame) killed around 500 Crow Indians personally, a lifetime vendetta he carried out because Crows murdered his non-Crow Indian wife.... BECAUSE SHE WAS THE WRONG TRIBE!

Public school taught you about the Trail of Tears, but not about vicious racist warfare by and among Indians.

Does this mean Indians were all bad? I didn't say that. But no way were they innocent victims.

An other example:

Visit George Washington's plantation, Mount Vernon. See how his slaves lived, learn the skills they had. Learn how some at least were paid wages. And how Washington did business with them, buying fruit and vegetables they raised in their private gardens.

Does this mean slavery was cushy? No. My point is that if you believe it was unending whippings and torture, you are brainwashed.

Did Black families get separated by sale of a member? Yes, if the owners went bankrupt etc. But I bet Black families were STILL more intact than today, on average. No AIDS, no crack, no gangs, no welfare.

This was my point about Armenians under Turks. Were there arbitrary tortures and murders under the Turks? Yes. But even so, as a race we were building churches and schools and making babies. Now, in America, our young men jack off and our women are sluts.

My point is that injustices and hardships of the past have to be weighed against intact families, more virile men, more feminine women, better human (i.e. Christian) values overall.