[acdha]

Not even close. That rich person had servants, could go on lengthy vacations, etc. and most likely they had substantial passive income.

The key thing to understand is the difference in how precarious those situations are: that affluent suburbanite has some shiny things but their cash flow is much higher than their wealth. A TV in every room is a rounding error on the $11k/year each of those new cars costs on average, and over the course of someone’s working life that kind of thing makes a huge difference in net worth.

The American healthcare system factors into this significantly: if your income depends on showing up to work daily, all of that can go away with a single health incident which leaves you unable to work. A truly rich person is considerably more likely to be able to ride something like that out.

Similarly, retirement is a source of stress for many Americans. Having given mortgage processors and car companies millions of dollars over your life won’t help you much then.

[BurningFrog]

The rich people of the past had no internet, cars, air travel, or much health care by modern standards. The average 2022 American is vastly better off materially.

What they had was social status, and I think that's more what you're talking about. Social status is incredibly important for humans, so I understand focusing on it. But since it's pretty much a Zero Sum Game, nothing much changes there.

[acdha]

Commercial aviation was just getting started, yes, But a rich person in 1922 had luxury rail travel, boats, cars, horses, etc. Most importantly, they had time: air travel is important for most of us because having a paltry couple weeks per year means people try to do things like weekend trips which couldn’t otherwise work. If you’re truly rich, you have a lot more margin for having other people do the unpleasant trips for you or adjusting schedules to suit your comfort.

Health care is the biggest differential - wealth can buy you out of a lot of lifestyle factors but a hundred years ago was just before the dawn of the antibiotic revolution. That part is true, but it isn’t a factor of rising incomes and given how many Americans have stress, lower quality of life, and experience severe financial strain due to healthcare costs I don’t think it’s attributable to higher incomes.

[BurningFrog]

I was trying to make the point that wealth and living standards isn't about numbers on bank statements.

It's about the material conditions you live in. And in 2022, what we take for granted would blow away pretty much anything in 1922.

I don't think I quite succeeded. Will maybe try something else next time.

[acdha]

My point was that this isn’t so clear cut: healthcare is great, but a lot of things are mixed because humans care about relative status and the real signifiers continue to be things which involve other humans doing labor for you. Even though Netflix exists rich people still go to the opera because it’s an experience most people can’t afford.

[ChuckNorris89]

>The rich people of the past had no internet, cars, air travel, or much health care by modern standards. The average 2022 American is vastly better off materially.

No, while rich people in the past had no iPhones or internet, they had something far more valuable than that: income generating businesses and appreciable assets like land, housing, gold, fine art, jewelery, etc.

And no, the average American is vastly poorer now as housing, stable well paying jobs, healthcare and education, are now massively out of reach for the average joe than they were a few decades ago. Having iPhones and internet doesn't make up for these.

[ben_w]

Minor quibble: they would've had cars 100 years ago. Bad ones, but they would've had them.

[RhysU]

> if your income depends on showing up to work daily, all of that can go away with a single health incident which leaves you unable to work.

Yes, but there are long-term disability insurance policies available for purchase that largely remove that risk. It's a cost, of course.

And, at least in the US, there are public programs that provide disability coverage already figured into one's taxes: https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

[acdha]

Which somewhat reduce that risk. People on SSI are usually struggling, not affluent, and actually getting those benefits can be a struggle for people with conditions less clear cut than, say, losing limbs.

I’m not saying they’re not worth having but again that there’s a big gap between someone being rich and a middle-class worker with decent active income.

[RhysU]

Definitely, the SSI application process can be onerous. It is meant for people who can do no job not just their pre-incident job.

Definitely, SSI is not a full-time job income. That's why a worker with decent active income should look into private, long-term disability insurance.