Is Elon Musk An "Absolute Hero...
News2 mins ago
old money
3 Answers
Would one be better off as a very rich person in 1705 or an average wage earner in 2005
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Finder. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
clearly better now
one of the richest people in the world, Louis the Sun King went to tremendous trouble to get great entertainers to come visit - he succedded to an extent, but the average rich country person can get the world's greatest entertainers to visit home constantly at minimal cost. Thomas de Quincey suggested that half of all the misery in the world was caused by toothache - modern medicine and dentistry take away most of the pain - and alo the heartache of losing children. Single parent families are no more common now than they were two hundred years ago - but then the children were more often with their father after the woman - rich or poor - died in chilbirth. Every morning, your 2p Asda throwaway razor gives you a far finer shave than was available to anyone. Instead of living off salt beef , rancid mutton and root veg, fruits, vegetables, spices and fine wines and spirits are sourced from across the world at incredibly low cost. Morals were probably freer then - so there was much opportunity for licentiousness and wenching, but the ensuing diseases were mostly fatal. An extra 10-20 years doesn't go amiss either. On the other hand, what with the enlightenment, it was an intellectuall y stimulating time, but then so is today and the ordinary person has access to all the greatest ideas of 1705 and all that came since. On top of that are the opportunities for travel, useful life after eyes deteriorate, lack of general stench, there're so many reasons it seems hard to think of anything better then. Hugely greater crime and murder rate then too.
Dearauntie.
one of the richest people in the world, Louis the Sun King went to tremendous trouble to get great entertainers to come visit - he succedded to an extent, but the average rich country person can get the world's greatest entertainers to visit home constantly at minimal cost. Thomas de Quincey suggested that half of all the misery in the world was caused by toothache - modern medicine and dentistry take away most of the pain - and alo the heartache of losing children. Single parent families are no more common now than they were two hundred years ago - but then the children were more often with their father after the woman - rich or poor - died in chilbirth. Every morning, your 2p Asda throwaway razor gives you a far finer shave than was available to anyone. Instead of living off salt beef , rancid mutton and root veg, fruits, vegetables, spices and fine wines and spirits are sourced from across the world at incredibly low cost. Morals were probably freer then - so there was much opportunity for licentiousness and wenching, but the ensuing diseases were mostly fatal. An extra 10-20 years doesn't go amiss either. On the other hand, what with the enlightenment, it was an intellectuall y stimulating time, but then so is today and the ordinary person has access to all the greatest ideas of 1705 and all that came since. On top of that are the opportunities for travel, useful life after eyes deteriorate, lack of general stench, there're so many reasons it seems hard to think of anything better then. Hugely greater crime and murder rate then too.
Dearauntie.
But then again...if you didn't like rancid beef I am sure as a very rich person you could have a cow/pig/sheep killed freshly for you if you wanted. You would have had lots more socialising with no worries about TV, being run over, terrorists etc. You would be at the forefront of society with everyone being nice to you and looking up at your position - many people had high life expectancies and life would just have been so much more relaxed - no obesity from McD*****, Sudan 1, George Bush, mortgage payments, double glazing salesmen etc etc. Also of the houses that are around today from that period I think most people would choose the 1705 ones than the 2005 ones. Bring it back!
1 to 3 of 3
