Which would you choose? 70k today or in 1900? (1 Viewer)

[cdogg]

I assumed I had to work in a set location for that 70K/year. Didnt know I could move around at will and still collect my hypothetical 70K.

I didn't see anything about working for it in a set location.

 

[DavidM]

man... I like air conditioning way too much

Indeed. Along with all of the other pretty common conveniences we enjoy today.

For those interested, the question was part of the discussion on an "Econ 101" series on NPR.

On today's Planet Money, we hear from Tim Taylor, an economist who starts out his econ classes with this question. He says about 2/3 of the students choose B

There's no right answer here. But, Taylor says, there is an implicit lesson:

"The force of economic growth over time has given middle class people in America today things that would have been regarded as miracles a century ago. And having access to those miracles is worth an enormous amount."

Here's a link to some brief commentary, the podcast (discussion about this question starts at about the 13 minute mark), and their survey results so far.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010...ou-rather-be-middle-class-now-or-rich-in-1900

 

[LKN H20Girl]

some very funny stuff posted here.

I thought about it and I'd probably go with the 1900 deal. I'd take a mansion on St. Charles avenue and live large.

I'd short the market right around 1927.

Ummm- you just broke your own rule - you don't have knowledge of the future.

 

[brophy]

If I HAD to take the money in 1900, rest assured I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!

 

[XXXtraAnchovies]

i could get away with murder back then

 

[cdogg]

i could get away with murder back then

Heck yeah, leave your DNA everywhere too, in any fashion, they have no idea what it is. Good times.

 

[Severum]

A. 70,000 today.
B. 70,000 in 1900

Choice A would give you a nice life. Not rich but not poor. Middle class.
Choice B would give you a very nice life in 1900. A mansion. Servants, and all the luxuries of the richest folks of the day.

so what would you choose?

And you don't get the luxury of knowing what you know today.

some very funny stuff posted here.

I thought about it and I'd probably go with the 1900 deal. I'd take a mansion on St. Charles avenue and live large.

I'd short the market right around 1927.

I think you're overvaluing what $70,000 was worth in 1900. There were already $100,000 mansions in the Garden District 30 years prior to that. $70k wouldn't be nearly enough to have all the luxuries of the richest folks who had yearly incomes in the millions. I certainly wouldn't give up my family, all my knowledge, and all modern conveniences for only $1.78 million today.

 

[LKN H20Girl]

I'm a bit of a priss pot. I need my creature comforts.

 

[saintsfan53]

i considered 1900 but overall i would like to watch football on sat and sun

 

[urzombiefood]

:checkit:

 

[HylianTom]

While $70,000 isn't "Set for Life" money like it was in 1900, it's still "Life-Changing" money here in 2010.

With that amount, I'd be able to pay-off my house and student loan, rendering my monthly cost of living to a pittance. My quality of life and need to work would be much, much better. And I'd be able to live this life in the place I love. So this is an easy choice for me.

That, and I have a hunch that we're going through one of the most fascinating periods of human history yet. I don't want to give-up my front-row seat .

 

[bozoka45]

no air conditioning in 1900, no matter how rich you were. I guess you could move between seasons if your 70K job didn't lock you down. Summer in South MS/La with no air.....NO THANKS for any amount of money!!

I'm guessing not many jobs paid 70k back then. If your income was that high, you owned something, and moving with the seasons probably wouldn't be a problem.

 

[LKN H20Girl]

He doesn't specify as per year. I read it as a one-time payment.

 

[daybreaker]

1900??? And die before the Saints are even formed, much less win a Superbowl??? Whats the point of being rich then???

 

[RussTKD]

Today. I like the internets too much.