The value of money
2010-Nov-28, Sunday 23:40![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matgbIn actual terms, someone earning about £25K today is close to the average, and probably struggling to get by. But a hundred years ago, that would've been a very comfortable living. Two hundred years ago, that would've put you in the very wealthiest sector of society, with servants to do your bidding and every need catered for.
Triple that today, you're looking at a good earning for a member of the professions: a doctor, a lawyer, an MP. A hundred years ago, it'd give youa millionaires lifestyle. Two hundred years ago, a billionaires lifestyle. So I thought I'd do a poll...
This was inspired by Putting pay in perspective by Tim Harford in the FT, linked by Chris Dillow in a thought provoking, but slightly sexist post on a similar topic.
But I'm with the majority of the respondents in the story Tim cites. I'd much rather live today, on median income, than live at any time in the past, even if that income would make me very very wealthy by the standards of the time. That's not just for health reasons, or rights reasons, or access reasons, it's for a whole number of things.
We have more freedoms today than many of our ancestors would've dreamed of. If I wanted to, I could right now pick up a small gadget and talk to any of my friends, pretty much anywhere in the world. In fact, that little portable gadget is so powerful that it makes the SF technology of 1960s Star Trek look like unambitious bricks. My phone is more powerful than their communicators and tricorders combined. If portable lasers are ever invented, I suspect the US market will be flooded with combined gadgets that do all three.
Anyone in the UK can access a university education, giving them the chance of becoming any of the professions. Sure, some of them are still stuck in a prejudiced past, law moreso than others, but a university education, free at the point of delivery, available to all who pass the entrance exams?
Most major diseases have been wiped out or contained, I can sit here on a nice sofa in a warm house typing this to be read by people all over the world, while watching James May meet Apollo astronauts in a repeat on one of the many cable channels we get in the basic, dirt cheap, package.
Sure, would it be nice to go back and lord it over people? Possible. Would I want to live there, permanently? I suspect I'd probably die of some godawful disease within a few weeks. How about you?
Oh yeah, numbers. I worked out median male and female full time incomes from stats on this page for 2009 at National Statistics Online - Earnings, I wanted to do a separate male and female question as it's observed that for many people, wanting to live as a woman before modern medicine and rights would be, well, an interesting preference, but not one I'd even consider making.
Triple that today, you're looking at a good earning for a member of the professions: a doctor, a lawyer, an MP. A hundred years ago, it'd give youa millionaires lifestyle. Two hundred years ago, a billionaires lifestyle. So I thought I'd do a poll...
You need to be logged in in order to take part in the poll. You do not need a Dreamwidth account, use your blog url as an OpenID here, you can also use your Google or Yahoo account, just type http://www.google.com/profiles/USERNAME or https://me.yahoo.com/ in the OpenID box.
Poll #5213 The days of yore
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 23
You have a fixed income of £75,000 per year, when would you rather live
You have a fixed income of £75,000 per year, when would you happily live
You are male and have a fixed income of £27,612 per year, when would you rather live
You are male and have a fixed income of £27,612 per year, when would you happily live
You are female and have a fixed income of £22,152 per year, when would you rather live
You are female and have a fixed income of £22,152 per year, when would you happily live
This was inspired by Putting pay in perspective by Tim Harford in the FT, linked by Chris Dillow in a thought provoking, but slightly sexist post on a similar topic.
But I'm with the majority of the respondents in the story Tim cites. I'd much rather live today, on median income, than live at any time in the past, even if that income would make me very very wealthy by the standards of the time. That's not just for health reasons, or rights reasons, or access reasons, it's for a whole number of things.
We have more freedoms today than many of our ancestors would've dreamed of. If I wanted to, I could right now pick up a small gadget and talk to any of my friends, pretty much anywhere in the world. In fact, that little portable gadget is so powerful that it makes the SF technology of 1960s Star Trek look like unambitious bricks. My phone is more powerful than their communicators and tricorders combined. If portable lasers are ever invented, I suspect the US market will be flooded with combined gadgets that do all three.
Anyone in the UK can access a university education, giving them the chance of becoming any of the professions. Sure, some of them are still stuck in a prejudiced past, law moreso than others, but a university education, free at the point of delivery, available to all who pass the entrance exams?
Most major diseases have been wiped out or contained, I can sit here on a nice sofa in a warm house typing this to be read by people all over the world, while watching James May meet Apollo astronauts in a repeat on one of the many cable channels we get in the basic, dirt cheap, package.
Sure, would it be nice to go back and lord it over people? Possible. Would I want to live there, permanently? I suspect I'd probably die of some godawful disease within a few weeks. How about you?
Oh yeah, numbers. I worked out median male and female full time incomes from stats on this page for 2009 at National Statistics Online - Earnings, I wanted to do a separate male and female question as it's observed that for many people, wanting to live as a woman before modern medicine and rights would be, well, an interesting preference, but not one I'd even consider making.
no subject
Date: 2010-Nov-29, Monday 00:33 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-Nov-29, Monday 03:19 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-Nov-29, Monday 14:46 (UTC)