[Frannyies]

And?

You still have more food choices and proper entertainment.

It's warm when you go to the toilet at night.

We even have the trend of people transforming their garden into stone garden due to the effort.

What's the benefit of those assets really?

[FirmwareBurner]

>What's the benefit of those assets really?

Not queuing with 100 people to visit a moldy overpriced Berlin apartment. Not worried about your retirement, if your pension will be enough to pay for your rent when you're 80. That's what assets are good for. Having Spotify doesn't make up for that.

[dannyobrien]

on the other hand, you have less worries about the closest 100 people in your world poisoning you to get hold of your mouldy cold castle. and actually having a retirement.

[freefaler]

If you're 15th century peasant in some of place in Germany you won't see retirement either you'd be dead by 45.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy

And your quality of life would be far worse than "in the queue with other 100 people"...

[FirmwareBurner]

Sure, it sucked being a peasant, but the original comparison was that the peasants of today have it better than kings of the past.

[flangola7]

The comparison was to kings, not peasants.

[freefaler]

Statistically the chance of being a king is miniscule... Currently king's don't sit in queues either. So the comparison is mingled. Compare kings of yesteryears with today's kings or common folk with common one today.

[gmerc]

I love how this somehow is used as an argument for todays wealth disparity. “Well kids, you could have been a Jew under Hitler, so go kiss Elons feet and be thankful” to put the argument to the max.