[kitesay]

This seems relevant to the topic:

Collections: Life, Work, Death and the Peasant, Part V: Life In Cycles – A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry https://acoup.blog/2025/10/17/collections-life-work-death-an...?

Five parts. This, the last gives a sense of what life was like.

I guess most people imagining those days think they'd be amongst the rich nobility, not in the peasant class.

There'd be few today that would want to go back to life at that time.

[jcranmer]

Devereaux wrote that series in large part in response to all the people going "gosh, modern life is just so much worse than medieval peasants!"

But honestly, even if you're comparing to the richest kings of the time, your median modern person has a better life. People seriously underestimate just how much of our modern life would be unattainable luxury in the Medieval period.

[somenameforme]

> even if you're comparing to the richest kings of the time, your median modern person has a better life

And the question I always ask when people make this claim - now would you rather be a median modern person or one of the richest kings of the medieval era? It emphasizes that there's far more unquantifiables to having a good life than there are quantifiables, yet we almost entirely socially neglect them.

[bradley13]

I remember a study from many years ago: people want to be better off than their immediate peers, regardless of where this puts them on an absolute scale.

The study went something like this. Which do you prefer? 1. You earn $250k but all your friends earn $500k. 2. You earn $125k, but all your friends earn $75k.

It was more refined then that, but anyway: most people picked (2).

[somenameforme]

I'm also familiar with that study, but I think it's a bit misleading because it implies the behavior is irrational by associating a fixed cost with everything. In reality, there's a perfectly rational logic that I think most people may subconsciously adapt to.

Imagine I give you a guaranteed $100k/year with the nuance that you're not allowed to earn any money beyond that, as the study implied that was your personal earnings. Where are you going to go live? In an area where most people are earning $200k or in an area where most people are earning $50k? It's the exact same question in effect, but now the phrasing makes it obvious that the choice is completely rational.

It's not about wanting to psychologically dominate your peers, but about making your money go further. If your friends are all earning twice what you do, then you're likely to struggle to afford even a decent house in a reasonable part of town. This logic breaks down at extremes of wealth, but $250k/year is nowhere near that point.

[adastra22]

A median modern person, no question. What’s the argument that you are implying but not stating?

[somenameforme]

I replied here [2] to an essentially identical question. Basically, it comes down to a question - what do you want out of life? And are you going to be more able to achieve that as e.g. a king, or as somebody earning $45k a year in the US (the current median personal income)?

[2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45951385

[adastra22]

And again, it feels very obvious to me that the median modern life is better than a king in the Middle Ages. Unless your interests are leading a short hedonistic life being controlled by your court and meeting a violent end. But I don’t think most people would value that.

[somenameforme]

Going with what I said in the other post - I would like to: have a large family, plenty of social relations, and the ability to play a role in shaping the future of society. Am I more likely to be able to achieve this as a king, or as somebody in the US earning $45k/year? For that matter I can't really think of anything that would be easier as somebody earning $45k a year in the US. What are your aspirations in life?

[phantasmish]

I dunno… median OECD state modern person, or median modern person globally?

I might go with being one of the richer medieval kings, in the latter case. Global median is pretty bad.

Only things that might sway me otherwise are antibiotics and if we’re factoring in the whole “sword of Damocles” aspect for despotic rulers.

[adastra22]

Global median is pretty good - out of poverty even by modern standards. And antibiotics and other medical care are definitely a large factor here, as well as the general safety that comes from living in a state with laws.

[chistev]

Why would you not want to be a median modern person?

[somenameforme]

What do you want out of life? Personally I am striving to have a large family, plenty of social relations, and would really like to have some ability to play a role in shaping the future of society. As a medieval king you have these to the point of absurdity.

In modern times? The median personal income (US only) is $45k. [1] That's something that's very easy to forget, especially on a forum like this. And at that income, doing anything, besides accumulating meaningless gadgets, will be a challenge. Even having children, the most fundamentally critical responsibility for a society to sustain itself, is a challenge. I don't think the skyrocketing rates of psychological, mental, and other disorders is simply a coincidence.

We've created a dysfunctional and unsustainable society. This can still be quite a nice place when you're way above the median, but the median lifestyle is going to be quite unpleasant. It's certainly not a lifestyle I would ever even consider preferring over that of a medieval king.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N