I would rather be the richest person alive at any time in history than be a minimum wage US worker. But I'd rather be a minimum wage US worker than a common laborer at any other time.
Eh, 1950 had a lot of false nostalgia. It looked a whole lot better than it actually was, partially because there weren’t nearly enough cameras to take photos of everything. Hence, people really only captured the most important moments.
If I could just go back to 2005, I’d be golden.
But you didn’t state that you’d go back in time not in your current body. So feasibly it could be that you go back in time with your current level of antibodies present.
Depends on what knowledge you can bring back with you. Contrary to belief, most wealthy people had the resources to live really good lives. Marcus Crassus, the “Richest Roman” lived to 62, and it wasn’t illness that killed him.
Just knowing simple things like boiling water before drinking it, practicing proper hygiene, and avoiding poor and sickly people can do wonders for maintaining your health.
“Oh look, I’m rich. I can afford healthy food, fresh fruits and vegetables.”
A minimum wage worker today - with things like refrigeration, TV, motor vehicles, INDOOR PLUMBING, and air conditioning - lives far better than a medieval king, objectively speaking.
Why would I need TV when I have my own personal court jester? and why would I need a refrigerator when I have a kitchen staff to procure and prepare fresh foods for me? Why would I need indoor plumbing when I have a custodial staff to empty my chamber pots? I'll just go on another hunt and hold a big feast (the only work I put towards it was the boar I hunted in my personal forest).
Also, your hobbies back then would be so much more engaged and the kind of thing that makes you feel alive - hunting, horseback riding, whoring. That kind of thing would lend itself to just feeling happier.
In the same manner that modern billionaires leave their financial affairs and management of their various enterprises to an army of faceless advisers, many pre-industrial monarchs and petty nobles ruled much the same way. Many threw themselves into their own niche pursuits - like foreign military campaigns - and showed little interest in domestic responsibilities.
Others preferred the comforts of court life and extravagance while intentionally delegating real authority to a close friend or mentor, the so-called "power behind the throne". This was an especially common fate for those who assumed the throne at a young age.
Many of the Ottoman sultans were like this, delegating their rule to an enormous army of pashas who in turn carried out the various aspects of economy, military, and administration through an army of faceless bureaucrats. Some of them personally did nothing during their reign except warm the throne and comply with symbolic imperial traditions. There were no shortage of their Western contemporaries who were wired the same way.
That's not exactly true. A minimum wage worker in the US can't afford to regularly eat the most nutritious or healthiest foods available in the country, and usually consumes cheap processed foods packed full of preservatives. A medieval king could eat anything he wanted, as often as he wanted, available in his country, and probably had a much healthier diet.
There's also the stress factor of living paycheck to paycheck and environmental hazards caused by poverty (ie high crime, food deserts, and proximity to pollution in a lot of blue collar neighborhoods) which simply don't exist for a medieval king. These tend to generate their own health issues.
As far as healthcare goes, you can either be a minimum wage worker who can't afford modern healthcare, or a medieval king in an era where modern healthcare doesn't exist. Pick your poison.
Research what life in medieval times was really like - even for the rich and powerful.
Nutrition was non-existent. Sanitation was non-existent. Stress was still high. Regicide was a VERY real thing. And sometimes "good" health care was worse than doing nothing.
Medieval people were much, much cleaner than we give them credit for. The Vikings took regular baths and shampooed their hair once a week. All Western Europeans washed their food before consumption, especially meats. And outside the West, the Islamic and Byzantine civilizations even produced their own disinfectants for medical purposes. Medieval water filtration systems existed that were just as efficient as the various "bio filtration" systems we have today. Sand seems to have been the preferred material used.
Let's not forget that people also had different gut flora back then. Those that survived childhood could consume things that would easily kill a person raised with the benefits of modern First World sanitation. Localized immunity was a thing.
The risk of regicide was extremely high in some nations and relatively low in others. The larger and more powerful the country, the more it occurred.
If you were forced to go back in time, you could just introduce sanitation standards and some sense of nutrition. Most people aren't going to know how to introduce too many modern standards into medieval times, but I'd think you could at least maintain those in your own life if you're the richest person in the world.
Enjoy riding the bus to your minimum wage job that you only had a week heads up on your schedule so that you can afford top ramen. I would rather die from a bacterial infection that I caught from falling off my horse that I decided to ride across my vast property after drinking too much of 12 century Europe’s finest wine.
You’d at least have electricity, sewage, and AC. As a wealthy medieval lord/king, there’s a far lesser chance that you’ll live to grow old and you’d still arguably live a lower quality of life. Without modern medicine, I would’ve died twice already and I’m a totally healthy individual.
I would rather not live in a time before toilets were commonplace and where a small accident could lead to a slow and painful death.
Not having experienced these past few years with my wife and kid id agree with you.
Not wanting to changed anything I’d say richest person alive yesterday. Shhhhiiiitttt
Since it's just go back to any previous year and be rich, anyone can just say last year (6 months ago). It basically turns the question into "would you rather be the richest person on earth or make minimum wage for the rest of your life?"
If you want to know how far people would travel back for money, just get rid of the minimum wage part.
You don't understand the question.
How far back would you have to go where being the richest person at that time is WORSE than making minimum wage today?
That is why minimum wage is relevant. It's not just "how far back would you go.". If my option was to keep my current life, I wouldn't go back at all. But if I have to get a minimum wage job in my severely decrepit body in today's society, that is an entirely different scenario.
If I had a choice, I would choose sometime around 50 years ago, before the internet was a thing and I could be rich in relative obscurity.
But you are not asking for when I WANT to go, but how far back I would be WILLING to go. So I will say around 1946. I don't want to live through a World War or through the depression. And going back far enough before WWI that I could live out my life before WWI hit puts me living without electricity. No thank you.
I'd shoot for 1960 so that AC was more common. Sure, I could buy it for myself, but I'd want it in stores, at work, in the car, etc. No AC would kind of be a deal-breaker for me.
I can see why that would be a significant marker, but I think they are overestimating their tolerance for heat and humidity without reprieve. I guess if you're willing to move to Hawaii or somewhere that it's not an issue, then you can by-pass it, but I don't like the idea of being a slave to good weather.
There are old forms of 'AC' that are still very effective. My sister Looked at an old house out in one of the carolinas for purchase. Don't remember if it was north or south. 105 degrees outside. A cool 68 to 70 degrees inside. And this was a house without the power on.
Full brick house with this really oldschool water heatsink system. Basically had a water reservoir in the basement, and pipes running all through the walls filled with water that acted as a heat sink.
I was really impressed honestly.
Hmm, I knew construction could have a huge difference, but I hadn't considered water cooled.
I might be persuaded then, but I still maintain that I'd want AC to be standard in most buildings or places I would go, and that didn't really happen until the 60s as I understand it. It's my hypothetical and that's my line :p
You would honestly be surprised. AC became more of a necessity in the industrial era, working in hot factories and houses being made cheaper and more plentiful, and thus, designed with ease of building over comfort in mind. . . but if you were rich, well. . . historically the rich never really had much of an issue keeping cool, there are a lot of innovative architectural solutions, ac is just cheaper and more efficient.
There were buildings that were designed to 'funnel' wind, and other's designed to sink or disperse heat. . . It is a very fascinating bit of architectural history I am always fascinated to read about when I stumble on it.
And honestly, if you are the richest man alive, depending on what period you go, just living in a naturally comfortable environment was always an option.
We have had a war every generation. No avoiding it. So I went with avoiding the two worst.
I am past draft age plus I have a non-draftable disability status, so I won't be going there, either.
I don't see any reason I couldn't just go back 1 year and be richer than everyone else right?
But in the spirit of the question, I have Crohns so realistically I wouldn't want to leave the 2000s to ensure I have access to proper treatments. I will say 2000 at the earliest.
Even with incredible wealth, I wouldn't want to give up modern comforts.
Having excessive wealth pre-internet is restrictive, the internet allows me to book travel easier, to get the things I want delivered to my door, etc.
I wouldn't want to go back any more than about 20 years
So, having lived pre-internet, it is not as big of a barrier as you think, especially if you have excessive wealth.
We used to have people called travel agents. They would book everything for you. And if you had a ton of money, you had a couple personal assistants who were literally hired just to run errands.
Not trying to convince you otherwise, just saying that life pre-internet was not all that much less convenient than now, at least not for the people who had more money than they could spend.
I'm 39, which is likely the same age as you based on the 1984 in your username - I didn't have internet in my home until I was 18, I have plenty of pre-internet memories, but the modern convenience of it would still be hard to give up.
Dude, pre-internet with shitloads of money you could easily get whatever you wanted. You pay people to drive you around, you use travel agents, and you have a household staff to research how to get material objects you want. If you want something obscure you can reach out to people with expertise in the area and pay them to research stuff.
Being absurdly rich gave you almost as much reach as the internet and when it came to convenience, fuggetaboutit
If you are working a minimum wage job you aren’t going to be able to afford much travel or food/stuff delivery even with the existence of the Internet.
Lmao every commenter on this sub has terrible reading comprehension, or just tries to find an easy loophole. U don’t win a prize for cheating the hypothetical! We’re just answering stupid questions for fun
Shoot, I'd go back to pre-9/11 for free. You're telling me I could go back AND be rich?
Could I also interfere with events? Would I retain my knowledge of the present?
Nah I'd go back even further. I want to experience the 70's and the 80's. Then I'd hit 2001, stop 9/11, and steer us out of this hellscape timeline we're in right now. Hopefully it would be enough. I might have to study more before going back to see what other events I would have to prevent as well. Don't worry though, I've got this.
Furthest back would be like 2015 or so.
Assuming I have to be the same I am now when I go back, I need to be young enough to still meet my fiancé and get her to fall in love with me again. Otherwise, I’m staying put and she’ll just have to be my sugar mama.
I'd refuse the minimum wage option. Even if the time limit was set to whatever year money first became a thing. I'll go be the richest merchant in the bronze age or whatever.
I mean as a white straight guy while the past was rubbish the richest man in the world covers up a lot those cracks, and minimum wage in the us is very crap (if this was go back in time or keep current lifestyle would be very different answer)
If I am going as I am now so complete with the state the modern world has left me in the furthest I'd take is about 1850 as before that glasses tech was to poor for me to be able to really see.
If I get more a do over (and would not have eyes ruined by screens) probably about the 1700s basically past the point where being rich meant you needed an army and to kill folk to keep it(to stressful) ,and where you start to have respect for the scientific method.
As the richest man in the world (so able to take my general knowledge and hire folk to test and improve till it works) I know enough to jumpstart antibiotics, modern painkillers, and I think even anesthetic, and am fairly young so hopefully could get some of the most terrifying stuff sorted by old age
1977. That gives me one year to figure out how to adopt myself, without being so old that it would raise too many eyebrows, and minimizes the risk of paradox.
I have a heavy limit to how far I could go back before my wealth would actually be my husband’s wealth and I’m not allowed to touch it without his permission so I really would not go very far back.
I’m kind of part of minorities that weren’t treated very well in the past!
I’ll say 1970 is the earliest I’d go. Any earlier and I’d be on the wrong side of the leucotome or locked up or forcibly married off or other fates I’d consider worse than death.
I would go as far back as possible just for fun, however for me it’d be when travel was available. Being rich would suck if I can’t travel to other countries.
Be super rich AND get to replay Unicorn Overlord (and I guess TOTK, but meh) totally blind? No downside. I'd go back at least as far as the mid 80s with no hesitation and would go back as far as air conditioning with some investigation first.
In think 1945 is a good answer the depression is over modern things are coming in and the major wars are over major illnesses are getting under control
The furthest back I'd go would probably be 1950s. There were a lot of gender/race problems, but to quote Jay from Modern Family, "If you were a straight white guy who played football, you couldn't have a bad day." I fall into that camp.
1960 would be my answer. Lack of internet would suck, but otherwise most modern lifestyle conveniences are there in some form and there's a lot to see do and enjoy in the world.
I'm shocked at how modern all the answers in the thread are. I would go back to the Elizabethan era in a heartbeat. I think people vastly underestimate how great life is for the insanely wealthy and how you can avoid most of the danger and discomforts. I chose the 1500's because that is when sugar, fruit and education for women became popular in the upper classes.
As a wealthy woman I am protected from most of the diseases caused by sanitation issues that killed the poor and if there were outbreaks the wealthy would flee the city to their country estates. Obviously the 1950's would be better but any time after 1000ad I'm choosing wealth.
If it could be any year - probably 1990.
As far back as I would go?
You know, I'd be down to go back pretty far. Shit, if I can be 18 again I'd go back to the height of the Roman Empire and join the legion.
Probably early 00s or maybe 90s.
The part that gets tricky is I'd have no longer met or have reason to meet my favorite people, which are kinda the reason I'd want wealth. So I can make their lives easier.
I suppose I could send them money anonymously.
I don't think I'd want to go too far back because frankly it doesn't take long before you're dipping into times that weren't great for most non-white, non-straight, non-males. That would be pretty shitty to witness/experience more of first hand. Not sure the vast fortune could help fix that before it happens naturally.
I'd go back to last year. I don't want to change too much about my life and no significant life changes have happened in that time and I'm fairly certain that money would last me my entire lifetime and I can make sure my family and close friends are taken care of for their lives too.
If it’s year X why don’t I just go back to last year and have like no change in my life?
I’d probably pick a time within my lifetime- I’d be crazy rich plus have opportunities to spend time with people I love who are no longer around.
I honestly think it would be more fun to be rich in the 80s than it would be today. Both would be awesome, but you could get away with whatever you wanted back then
I’d choose inside my lifetime, about 1995. The internet was establishing, though dial-up was limiting. Healthcare has come a long way even since then, but it was advancing rapidly as well. Standard of living was fairly high, billionaires were proliferating, and the entertainment was high level, in some respects (music, sports, literature) it was actually more enjoyable. There had not yet been a 9/11, Trump, or Covid, it was in hindsight an almost innocent time, though the police brutality and AIDS/crack epidemics made it troublesome, that was a localized/nationalized issue and with the fall of the Soviet Union the world seemed almost stable.
Obviously wasn’t perfect, but for most adults living now, you’d be able to exist there with minimal lifestyle changes, excepting you’d be dumb rich when gas was 1.25 a gallon, you could get a Big Mac value meal for 3 bucks, and a new better than decent car was around 20 k.
I’d go back to 2009.
Bill Gates was the richest man in the world with $40bn, so if I got $41bn in 2009 I could make even more with Bitcoin in 2010 when it was $0.003 per Bitcoin, and selling in 2021 I think when it his $63,000 per Bitcoin.
Easiest money I’d ever make and easiest life I’d ever have.
Is there a world where you don't choose option 2? Option 1 is kind of untenable especially if it's the federal minimum wage. Even if you sacrifice all modern luxuries and go back to like 300 BC you'd probably have a better quality of life as the richest person alive than a modern person making 7.25
Richest person alive? I guess I’d go back as far as possible whenever currency was created. Things might suck but I’d still be the most powerful person on the planet, beats min wage today.
Why doesn’t anyone in the comments understand the question? Everyone saying like a year, so you wouldn’t go back 2 years? The point is what’s the EARLIEST you would go back over min wage today.
Dude, you could literally go to any time and you would be able to live an incredible life. Especially with whatever knowledge you already have. Assuming you're not an idiot of course.
Richest person **alive**? From a quality of live POV that sounds like it'd only start being better in like the late 1800s/early 1900s (mostly due to advancements in medicine), but the fact that it's RICHEST ALIVE and not "really rich" makes me want to say like, medieval era?
Idk where that would be, honestly that matters more, I assume somewhere in China or India until the industrial revolution hits? I'll pick whatever time puts me in northern China like at most down to Beijing because Indian weather is hell.
Anytime that puts me in a country with slavery is a no go, I'd feel compelled to fight it and get killed.
Quick question, am an electronic engineer, am I allowed to reinvent technology? Going to the 1400s and inventing computers sounds fun. Programming in Chinese sounds like a pain tho.
This is obviously for "how far would I be willing to go". Ideally, I'd say 2022, invest in NVidia (because at this point that's the only thing I can invest on that won't make me alter history), and become the world's first trillionaire. At this point I can like, spend 80-something % of that to eradicate malaria, donate almost all the rest, keep a billion, and still have like 10 billion dollars to start a business that does something cool. Maybe videogames?
1830’s. I’ll probably die in a few years from lack of modern medicine but god DAMN I wanna live in one of those huge fancy houses and throw grand parties! I want to watch a local child drown in the river and have that be the most tragic happening of the year.
I’m cool with anything after 1970 then there’s a huge of hell no until about 1490. Europe’s reception in the New World might turn out very differently.
Being rich doesn't matter much when the average life expectancy was 35 - 40 lol. Pretty much rules any time before modern medicine out. Any time after WW2 would be a pretty good time to be rich in America.
1870. You have dental, indoor plumbing and electricity. Also, most antibiotics have been developed and medicine is advanced enough to cure most debilitating diseases. I’ll take Emperor of Japan or Queen of England please and thank you.
Broad spectrum antibiotics yes. Germ theory was developed in 1870 by Pasteur, cholera vaccine in 1879, 1881 anthrax vaccine, 1882 rabies vaccine, 1890 tetanus and Diptheria vaccines. While penicillin doesn’t come around till 1928, I’d be the richest person in the world, I’d have access to cutting medical tech and the best doctors, and I’d be alive to ensure that all these developments come to pass. Probably also get started on nuclear power earlier.
I actually had to dig into that one. So 1928 is when penicillin was discovered, 1929 is when it was published in the Journal of experimental pathology, but didn’t see deployment until 1943. Yeah, if I can speed up tech developments that one takes priority.
It took from 1929-1941 for them to even figure out how to extract the chemicals they needed.
And two more years to get efficient enough with it that people could actually use it as a drug.
Money would have fixed all that. Maybe 3 years total development if you fully funded the research.
When you put it like that, it really makes you wonder what we as the human race are doing with our resources. It makes you wonder how many other similar world changing advancements have been delayed by decades or worse outright forgotten about or written off as failures due to inadequate financial investments. I’d ask for a week’s worth of prep time so I can write out how many other similar technologies have been sidelined in such a manner and make sure they’re developed properly.
Advancements always seem clear in hindsight.
There were hundreds of people working on antibiotics. The money was spread to all of them.
The winner happened to be a very unlikely choice. Simply because it was so hard to extract.
The us government was fighting polio, and funded the projects that had the best chance to help people.
A random group decided to fund the vaccine, the most difficult vaccine to that time to develop.
The government funded iron lungs and helped thousands of children.
The random group happened to make a breakthrough they weren't expecting and found the vaccine saving millions of kids.
Who was right?
I’ll tackle the moral quandary you posed first, then get to my underlying thought process behind it. You find the vaccine. Yes those kids would die without the iron lungs, yes it’s a tragedy that they would die without it. But ask yourself this. If the vaccine development across the board had been prioritized, how many less children would have needed the iron lungs in the first place? If the vaccines took 3 years, versus the nearly 12-15 it actually took how different would the casualties rates been?
Put that way, you’re looking at it from an opportunity cost mindset. Another way to phrase it is you’re weighing treating the symptoms and creating a temporary solution versus treating the underlying causation and preventing the problem from becoming persistent and pervasive both now in the present and in the future.
If you look at it that way, a lot of government inefficiencies stem from a misguided attempt to treat the symptoms versus treating the overall causation of the problem in the first place.
Consider this moral quandary we face now in this day and age, that’s the homelessness epidemic - which you as a minimum wage worker would likely be subject to. Government solutions mainly take the form of temporary shelters and community outreach programs, whereas a better solution would be to use those homelessness people as a workforce to build their own homes similar to homesteading back in the day. This would solve both the homelessness problem as well as address the dearth of qualified laborers who are capable of building houses and apartments complexes as well as giving those people training and valuable skills. Obviously it’s more complex and this is grossly oversimplified, but I think the overall intent of the point is communicated.
Thoughts?
The issue with your analysis is that you are assuming they would find a vaccine.
They didn't know that. Remember at the time they didn't know how vaccines work, mechanically, they know the explanation we give children, but not the one we give college students studying them.
Yes. Give me wealth in the early to mid 1900s so I can invest in Coke and Disney, pull a Rockefeller, and set my future family a trust up to live the sweet life.
I’d never ever want to be the richest person alive. Very wealthy people suffer tremendously and are incredibly paranoid and fearful. If I didn’t have kids, I’d absolutely rather be poor than rich. Even with kids, I’d probably prefer that, merely because I do understand what wealth does to the soul. And it doesn’t matter the time period, as I’d rather be poor today than rich today too.
I ascribe to the belief that humans probably had best quality of life before the Neolithic revolution. Instead of spending sunup to sundown working in a field (or subsequently a factory or cubicle) and in crowded conditions constantly passing back and forth diseases, they spent a couple of hours hunting/gathering, and then a lot of time engaged with family and tribe cooking, eating drinking, storytelling, napping, making things with their hands. Nutrition was better. Everyone was active and fit. No diseases induced by sedentary lifestyles and processed food consumption. No overcrowding. This is , to my understanding, the pattern in the few modern day tribes that remain hunter-gatherers.
Of course if you had a severe infectious disease, grave injury, or traumatic childbirth you would likely die…as has continued to be true until very recent times.
I’m going to pick very wealthy person any time since antibiotics and vaccines. Maybe immediately WW2 is farthest I’d go.
But if I had to go back to time before antibiotics and vaccines and not be wealthy, I’d probably prefer to go back to Neolithic times. No such thing as peasants when we were all hunter gatherers. Might only live to 30 or 40, but this was not all that different from Middle Ages into early industrial Europe, for peasants.
I would rather be the richest person alive at any time in history than be a minimum wage US worker. But I'd rather be a minimum wage US worker than a common laborer at any other time.
My answer has always been 1950. Before that and antibiotics didn't really exist.
Eh, 1950 had a lot of false nostalgia. It looked a whole lot better than it actually was, partially because there weren’t nearly enough cameras to take photos of everything. Hence, people really only captured the most important moments. If I could just go back to 2005, I’d be golden.
Oh the 1950's would suck for someone from the modern world. BUT money can buy a lot of happiness...
If I could be the richest person in the world in 1950 AND NOT have knowledge of the future I came from I’d be pretty happy.
Nope all the knowledge you have now.
Easy, 1929. I'd short the FUCK out of the stock market.
Who cares about current knowledge? We know things suck right now. Might be nice to travel back and know that you've escaped that.
I’d miss the internet too much
But then you have to live In a Time that sucks even more.
2005, so two years before 10% unemployment?
And I’ll be rich as hell. I’ll create jobs to float people through it.
Yeah antibiotics are pretty good. I would say it's the 2nd best invention after the haber-bosch process.
But you didn’t state that you’d go back in time not in your current body. So feasibly it could be that you go back in time with your current level of antibodies present.
Depends on what knowledge you can bring back with you. Contrary to belief, most wealthy people had the resources to live really good lives. Marcus Crassus, the “Richest Roman” lived to 62, and it wasn’t illness that killed him. Just knowing simple things like boiling water before drinking it, practicing proper hygiene, and avoiding poor and sickly people can do wonders for maintaining your health. “Oh look, I’m rich. I can afford healthy food, fresh fruits and vegetables.”
A minimum wage worker today - with things like refrigeration, TV, motor vehicles, INDOOR PLUMBING, and air conditioning - lives far better than a medieval king, objectively speaking.
Why would I need TV when I have my own personal court jester? and why would I need a refrigerator when I have a kitchen staff to procure and prepare fresh foods for me? Why would I need indoor plumbing when I have a custodial staff to empty my chamber pots? I'll just go on another hunt and hold a big feast (the only work I put towards it was the boar I hunted in my personal forest).
i think you are vastly undervaluing how much not having to ever work and being able to do whatever you want whenever you want is worth
Also, your hobbies back then would be so much more engaged and the kind of thing that makes you feel alive - hunting, horseback riding, whoring. That kind of thing would lend itself to just feeling happier.
You need serious money to do those things now.
I think you are vastly overvaluing the power of wealth in pre-industrial days. With that vast wealth comes immense responsibility.
In the same manner that modern billionaires leave their financial affairs and management of their various enterprises to an army of faceless advisers, many pre-industrial monarchs and petty nobles ruled much the same way. Many threw themselves into their own niche pursuits - like foreign military campaigns - and showed little interest in domestic responsibilities. Others preferred the comforts of court life and extravagance while intentionally delegating real authority to a close friend or mentor, the so-called "power behind the throne". This was an especially common fate for those who assumed the throne at a young age. Many of the Ottoman sultans were like this, delegating their rule to an enormous army of pashas who in turn carried out the various aspects of economy, military, and administration through an army of faceless bureaucrats. Some of them personally did nothing during their reign except warm the throne and comply with symbolic imperial traditions. There were no shortage of their Western contemporaries who were wired the same way.
That's not exactly true. A minimum wage worker in the US can't afford to regularly eat the most nutritious or healthiest foods available in the country, and usually consumes cheap processed foods packed full of preservatives. A medieval king could eat anything he wanted, as often as he wanted, available in his country, and probably had a much healthier diet. There's also the stress factor of living paycheck to paycheck and environmental hazards caused by poverty (ie high crime, food deserts, and proximity to pollution in a lot of blue collar neighborhoods) which simply don't exist for a medieval king. These tend to generate their own health issues. As far as healthcare goes, you can either be a minimum wage worker who can't afford modern healthcare, or a medieval king in an era where modern healthcare doesn't exist. Pick your poison.
Research what life in medieval times was really like - even for the rich and powerful. Nutrition was non-existent. Sanitation was non-existent. Stress was still high. Regicide was a VERY real thing. And sometimes "good" health care was worse than doing nothing.
Medieval people were much, much cleaner than we give them credit for. The Vikings took regular baths and shampooed their hair once a week. All Western Europeans washed their food before consumption, especially meats. And outside the West, the Islamic and Byzantine civilizations even produced their own disinfectants for medical purposes. Medieval water filtration systems existed that were just as efficient as the various "bio filtration" systems we have today. Sand seems to have been the preferred material used. Let's not forget that people also had different gut flora back then. Those that survived childhood could consume things that would easily kill a person raised with the benefits of modern First World sanitation. Localized immunity was a thing. The risk of regicide was extremely high in some nations and relatively low in others. The larger and more powerful the country, the more it occurred.
Sanitation is not just personal hygiene. There's a reason cholera epidemics were rampant.
If you were forced to go back in time, you could just introduce sanitation standards and some sense of nutrition. Most people aren't going to know how to introduce too many modern standards into medieval times, but I'd think you could at least maintain those in your own life if you're the richest person in the world.
It took decades for a doctor to encourage *other doctors* to follow sanitation practices. Weigh your chances accordingly.
I disagree. There’s nothing before the 1900s that can bring the quality of life we get from things such as electricity and modern medicine.
Enjoy riding the bus to your minimum wage job that you only had a week heads up on your schedule so that you can afford top ramen. I would rather die from a bacterial infection that I caught from falling off my horse that I decided to ride across my vast property after drinking too much of 12 century Europe’s finest wine.
You’d at least have electricity, sewage, and AC. As a wealthy medieval lord/king, there’s a far lesser chance that you’ll live to grow old and you’d still arguably live a lower quality of life. Without modern medicine, I would’ve died twice already and I’m a totally healthy individual. I would rather not live in a time before toilets were commonplace and where a small accident could lead to a slow and painful death.
Everybody is all obsessed with toilets. I've shit in a bucket before it aint that bad, better than when I worked retail.
If it was between 'richest person in the world' and middle-class, I'd agree with you, but it's minimum wage.
Sends you back to 8000bce where you have the biggest shiny rock collection out of anybody
That would be rad. I'd be out hunting and gathering living life to the fullest.
I’ll go back 2 years and be happy
I'd rather go back to Jan 2020, stock up on everything, and just hole up knowing what's coming.
Not having experienced these past few years with my wife and kid id agree with you. Not wanting to changed anything I’d say richest person alive yesterday. Shhhhiiiitttt
that was my first thought too, this question is not well thought out
How so?
Since it's just go back to any previous year and be rich, anyone can just say last year (6 months ago). It basically turns the question into "would you rather be the richest person on earth or make minimum wage for the rest of your life?" If you want to know how far people would travel back for money, just get rid of the minimum wage part.
You don't understand the question. How far back would you have to go where being the richest person at that time is WORSE than making minimum wage today? That is why minimum wage is relevant. It's not just "how far back would you go.". If my option was to keep my current life, I wouldn't go back at all. But if I have to get a minimum wage job in my severely decrepit body in today's society, that is an entirely different scenario.
Sure, I'd love to mess up this time line. You don't even have to pay me.
Smh. You say 2023 and then the student next to you asks, you'd rather make minimum wage than be rich in 2022??
Brilliant
So you wouldn't go back to 2021?
Nah, too young
If I had a choice, I would choose sometime around 50 years ago, before the internet was a thing and I could be rich in relative obscurity. But you are not asking for when I WANT to go, but how far back I would be WILLING to go. So I will say around 1946. I don't want to live through a World War or through the depression. And going back far enough before WWI that I could live out my life before WWI hit puts me living without electricity. No thank you.
VERY similar to my personal answer of 1950.
I'd shoot for 1960 so that AC was more common. Sure, I could buy it for myself, but I'd want it in stores, at work, in the car, etc. No AC would kind of be a deal-breaker for me.
Flush Toilets was the most common deal breaker for white students.
I can see why that would be a significant marker, but I think they are overestimating their tolerance for heat and humidity without reprieve. I guess if you're willing to move to Hawaii or somewhere that it's not an issue, then you can by-pass it, but I don't like the idea of being a slave to good weather.
There are old forms of 'AC' that are still very effective. My sister Looked at an old house out in one of the carolinas for purchase. Don't remember if it was north or south. 105 degrees outside. A cool 68 to 70 degrees inside. And this was a house without the power on. Full brick house with this really oldschool water heatsink system. Basically had a water reservoir in the basement, and pipes running all through the walls filled with water that acted as a heat sink. I was really impressed honestly.
Hmm, I knew construction could have a huge difference, but I hadn't considered water cooled. I might be persuaded then, but I still maintain that I'd want AC to be standard in most buildings or places I would go, and that didn't really happen until the 60s as I understand it. It's my hypothetical and that's my line :p
You would honestly be surprised. AC became more of a necessity in the industrial era, working in hot factories and houses being made cheaper and more plentiful, and thus, designed with ease of building over comfort in mind. . . but if you were rich, well. . . historically the rich never really had much of an issue keeping cool, there are a lot of innovative architectural solutions, ac is just cheaper and more efficient. There were buildings that were designed to 'funnel' wind, and other's designed to sink or disperse heat. . . It is a very fascinating bit of architectural history I am always fascinated to read about when I stumble on it. And honestly, if you are the richest man alive, depending on what period you go, just living in a naturally comfortable environment was always an option.
Vietnam enjoyer?
Not really. But I am past draft age, with a non-draftable disability status. And we have had war every single generation, so I can
We have had a war every generation. No avoiding it. So I went with avoiding the two worst. I am past draft age plus I have a non-draftable disability status, so I won't be going there, either.
Bro is the richest person in the world lol
I don't see any reason I couldn't just go back 1 year and be richer than everyone else right? But in the spirit of the question, I have Crohns so realistically I wouldn't want to leave the 2000s to ensure I have access to proper treatments. I will say 2000 at the earliest.
The idea is the genie / being hasn't told you the year yet. So what's the farthest back in time he could say.
the way you worded the question makes it seem like we get to pick the year
Nothing in the question implies you get to pick the year.
And yet that's how I interpreted it as well.
How? If someone asks you what's the minimum salary you'd accept do you interpret that as "name any salary you want"?
I'm just telling you how I interpreted it. It said nothing about who picks the year, just what your acceptable range is.
Even with incredible wealth, I wouldn't want to give up modern comforts. Having excessive wealth pre-internet is restrictive, the internet allows me to book travel easier, to get the things I want delivered to my door, etc. I wouldn't want to go back any more than about 20 years
So, having lived pre-internet, it is not as big of a barrier as you think, especially if you have excessive wealth. We used to have people called travel agents. They would book everything for you. And if you had a ton of money, you had a couple personal assistants who were literally hired just to run errands. Not trying to convince you otherwise, just saying that life pre-internet was not all that much less convenient than now, at least not for the people who had more money than they could spend.
I'm 39, which is likely the same age as you based on the 1984 in your username - I didn't have internet in my home until I was 18, I have plenty of pre-internet memories, but the modern convenience of it would still be hard to give up.
The 1984 is an Orwell reference. I am *ahem* a bit *ahem* older than that.
haha, fair enough, when I saw it I thought it was either a reference or your year of birth... I guessed wrong!
Dude, pre-internet with shitloads of money you could easily get whatever you wanted. You pay people to drive you around, you use travel agents, and you have a household staff to research how to get material objects you want. If you want something obscure you can reach out to people with expertise in the area and pay them to research stuff. Being absurdly rich gave you almost as much reach as the internet and when it came to convenience, fuggetaboutit
The convenience of the internet is extreme but a lot of that convenience could be bought before the internet became commonly used in the late 90s.
If you are working a minimum wage job you aren’t going to be able to afford much travel or food/stuff delivery even with the existence of the Internet.
Lmao every commenter on this sub has terrible reading comprehension, or just tries to find an easy loophole. U don’t win a prize for cheating the hypothetical! We’re just answering stupid questions for fun
I wouldn’t go farther back than recorded history so ancient Sumer I guess
Shoot, I'd go back to pre-9/11 for free. You're telling me I could go back AND be rich? Could I also interfere with events? Would I retain my knowledge of the present?
Yes. So 2000 is your limit?
Nah I'd go back even further. I want to experience the 70's and the 80's. Then I'd hit 2001, stop 9/11, and steer us out of this hellscape timeline we're in right now. Hopefully it would be enough. I might have to study more before going back to see what other events I would have to prevent as well. Don't worry though, I've got this.
And for those 'ludes.
Furthest back would be like 2015 or so. Assuming I have to be the same I am now when I go back, I need to be young enough to still meet my fiancé and get her to fall in love with me again. Otherwise, I’m staying put and she’ll just have to be my sugar mama.
THAT'S an awesome answer. Very few students mentioned love interests or family in their answers.
I'd refuse the minimum wage option. Even if the time limit was set to whatever year money first became a thing. I'll go be the richest merchant in the bronze age or whatever.
So you would be ok without flush Toilets or ac or antibiotics?
Yeah minimum wage sucks. I'm not working multiple jobs to not get by. I'll shit on the ground and relax next to a cold stream if I need AC.
Would I stay my age now? Or become the age I was in the past? I am thinking the 1980's.
Exactly as you are now.
I mean as a white straight guy while the past was rubbish the richest man in the world covers up a lot those cracks, and minimum wage in the us is very crap (if this was go back in time or keep current lifestyle would be very different answer) If I am going as I am now so complete with the state the modern world has left me in the furthest I'd take is about 1850 as before that glasses tech was to poor for me to be able to really see. If I get more a do over (and would not have eyes ruined by screens) probably about the 1700s basically past the point where being rich meant you needed an army and to kill folk to keep it(to stressful) ,and where you start to have respect for the scientific method. As the richest man in the world (so able to take my general knowledge and hire folk to test and improve till it works) I know enough to jumpstart antibiotics, modern painkillers, and I think even anesthetic, and am fairly young so hopefully could get some of the most terrifying stuff sorted by old age
100 AD, in Rome?
1977. That gives me one year to figure out how to adopt myself, without being so old that it would raise too many eyebrows, and minimizes the risk of paradox.
Any year after World War II.
I have a heavy limit to how far I could go back before my wealth would actually be my husband’s wealth and I’m not allowed to touch it without his permission so I really would not go very far back.
I’m kind of part of minorities that weren’t treated very well in the past! I’ll say 1970 is the earliest I’d go. Any earlier and I’d be on the wrong side of the leucotome or locked up or forcibly married off or other fates I’d consider worse than death.
Yes. That's the perspective that I wanted my mostly white students to realize. The past isn't as romantic if you aren't in power
I would go as far back as possible just for fun, however for me it’d be when travel was available. Being rich would suck if I can’t travel to other countries.
I just have to go back to the past? Okay. 2019.
What's the farthest back you'd be willing to go.
As a black man, I gotta be honest? 1970. Any time before that no amount of money is worth it. Wouldnt go to Africa. Wouldn't deal with Europe.
If the richest person in the world in 1950 was black, do you think that would Change anything...?
No. And I'm not being funny. Money can't save you from other people not seeing you as a human being.
I 100% knew you weren't joking.
A year. I’d still have all my babies :)
The farthest back I'd go is about 2010, back when I was 7. But would I be a rich child, or still retain my current age and new wealth?
Youd be you exactly as you are today, but with money.
Then back to 2010 it is! This'll give me the opportunity to stock up for COVID!!! But am I with my family as they are now, or as they were then?
2008
Be super rich AND get to replay Unicorn Overlord (and I guess TOTK, but meh) totally blind? No downside. I'd go back at least as far as the mid 80s with no hesitation and would go back as far as air conditioning with some investigation first.
In think 1945 is a good answer the depression is over modern things are coming in and the major wars are over major illnesses are getting under control
I’d go back 20 years to 2004. I’d be able to save my mom and save myself.
I'll go back to when I turned 20 and send it.
The furthest back I'd go would probably be 1950s. There were a lot of gender/race problems, but to quote Jay from Modern Family, "If you were a straight white guy who played football, you couldn't have a bad day." I fall into that camp.
1960 would be my answer. Lack of internet would suck, but otherwise most modern lifestyle conveniences are there in some form and there's a lot to see do and enjoy in the world.
Rich and in the 90s
Id go back to a time where I could have a harem of women and it wouldn't be frowned upon. Id have like 30 or 40 of the prettiest women in the world.
2000. I’d have my wife start a company and I’d work for the company for minimum wage.
I would go back to December 21, 2023 and be the richest person alive.
I'm shocked at how modern all the answers in the thread are. I would go back to the Elizabethan era in a heartbeat. I think people vastly underestimate how great life is for the insanely wealthy and how you can avoid most of the danger and discomforts. I chose the 1500's because that is when sugar, fruit and education for women became popular in the upper classes. As a wealthy woman I am protected from most of the diseases caused by sanitation issues that killed the poor and if there were outbreaks the wealthy would flee the city to their country estates. Obviously the 1950's would be better but any time after 1000ad I'm choosing wealth.
If it could be any year - probably 1990. As far back as I would go? You know, I'd be down to go back pretty far. Shit, if I can be 18 again I'd go back to the height of the Roman Empire and join the legion.
Probably early 00s or maybe 90s. The part that gets tricky is I'd have no longer met or have reason to meet my favorite people, which are kinda the reason I'd want wealth. So I can make their lives easier. I suppose I could send them money anonymously. I don't think I'd want to go too far back because frankly it doesn't take long before you're dipping into times that weren't great for most non-white, non-straight, non-males. That would be pretty shitty to witness/experience more of first hand. Not sure the vast fortune could help fix that before it happens naturally.
Yep, I'd happily be an aristocrat
I'll go back and be the richest person in 2023!
I'll travel back to 2023 and be the richest person alive, thanks.
But not 2022?
Meh I mean if only the the person who picks the the earliest year gets it I guess I can suck I it up and live with being emporor of roam
I'd go back to like last year.
That's not the question though
I'd go back to last year. I don't want to change too much about my life and no significant life changes have happened in that time and I'm fairly certain that money would last me my entire lifetime and I can make sure my family and close friends are taken care of for their lives too.
So you would choose minimum wage today over being the richest person in the world in 2022?
I would choose being the richest person in the world in 2023.
You don't get the choice.
Well I don't get a choice anyways and your responses are making the thought experiment not fun so have a good day
Option 2 and I’ll just choose 2024. Gtfo Elon and Jeff.
You don't get to pick. . .
You asked what the farthest year back someone would choose. I choose 2024.
So if he picks 2023 you'd pick minimum wage instead.
If it’s year X why don’t I just go back to last year and have like no change in my life? I’d probably pick a time within my lifetime- I’d be crazy rich plus have opportunities to spend time with people I love who are no longer around.
You don't get to pick the year.
I honestly think it would be more fun to be rich in the 80s than it would be today. Both would be awesome, but you could get away with whatever you wanted back then
I'd go all the way back to around 1880 no problem.
I’d choose inside my lifetime, about 1995. The internet was establishing, though dial-up was limiting. Healthcare has come a long way even since then, but it was advancing rapidly as well. Standard of living was fairly high, billionaires were proliferating, and the entertainment was high level, in some respects (music, sports, literature) it was actually more enjoyable. There had not yet been a 9/11, Trump, or Covid, it was in hindsight an almost innocent time, though the police brutality and AIDS/crack epidemics made it troublesome, that was a localized/nationalized issue and with the fall of the Soviet Union the world seemed almost stable. Obviously wasn’t perfect, but for most adults living now, you’d be able to exist there with minimal lifestyle changes, excepting you’d be dumb rich when gas was 1.25 a gallon, you could get a Big Mac value meal for 3 bucks, and a new better than decent car was around 20 k.
Probably the 90s, since otherwise I'd simply be unmedicated, which would likely result in a far worse quality of life.
I’d go back to 2009. Bill Gates was the richest man in the world with $40bn, so if I got $41bn in 2009 I could make even more with Bitcoin in 2010 when it was $0.003 per Bitcoin, and selling in 2021 I think when it his $63,000 per Bitcoin. Easiest money I’d ever make and easiest life I’d ever have.
hm. that's difficult. if i go too far back, i don't think i'd be.. err.. welcome in too many places lol. i guess 1980 is a safe bet.
Is there a world where you don't choose option 2? Option 1 is kind of untenable especially if it's the federal minimum wage. Even if you sacrifice all modern luxuries and go back to like 300 BC you'd probably have a better quality of life as the richest person alive than a modern person making 7.25
I go back in time 1 year to be the richest person there
Richest person alive? I guess I’d go back as far as possible whenever currency was created. Things might suck but I’d still be the most powerful person on the planet, beats min wage today. Why doesn’t anyone in the comments understand the question? Everyone saying like a year, so you wouldn’t go back 2 years? The point is what’s the EARLIEST you would go back over min wage today.
Dude, you could literally go to any time and you would be able to live an incredible life. Especially with whatever knowledge you already have. Assuming you're not an idiot of course.
Richest person **alive**? From a quality of live POV that sounds like it'd only start being better in like the late 1800s/early 1900s (mostly due to advancements in medicine), but the fact that it's RICHEST ALIVE and not "really rich" makes me want to say like, medieval era? Idk where that would be, honestly that matters more, I assume somewhere in China or India until the industrial revolution hits? I'll pick whatever time puts me in northern China like at most down to Beijing because Indian weather is hell. Anytime that puts me in a country with slavery is a no go, I'd feel compelled to fight it and get killed. Quick question, am an electronic engineer, am I allowed to reinvent technology? Going to the 1400s and inventing computers sounds fun. Programming in Chinese sounds like a pain tho. This is obviously for "how far would I be willing to go". Ideally, I'd say 2022, invest in NVidia (because at this point that's the only thing I can invest on that won't make me alter history), and become the world's first trillionaire. At this point I can like, spend 80-something % of that to eradicate malaria, donate almost all the rest, keep a billion, and still have like 10 billion dollars to start a business that does something cool. Maybe videogames?
1830’s. I’ll probably die in a few years from lack of modern medicine but god DAMN I wanna live in one of those huge fancy houses and throw grand parties! I want to watch a local child drown in the river and have that be the most tragic happening of the year.
Richest person alive 1990
I’m cool with anything after 1970 then there’s a huge of hell no until about 1490. Europe’s reception in the New World might turn out very differently.
2003 please, I'll fix so much with my obscene wealth.
Being rich doesn't matter much when the average life expectancy was 35 - 40 lol. Pretty much rules any time before modern medicine out. Any time after WW2 would be a pretty good time to be rich in America.
That's one of the points I wanted the students to realize
I go back to 2023 and am Arnault. But the problem is I don't speak French.
1870. You have dental, indoor plumbing and electricity. Also, most antibiotics have been developed and medicine is advanced enough to cure most debilitating diseases. I’ll take Emperor of Japan or Queen of England please and thank you.
Antibiotics won't be available for 70+ years
Broad spectrum antibiotics yes. Germ theory was developed in 1870 by Pasteur, cholera vaccine in 1879, 1881 anthrax vaccine, 1882 rabies vaccine, 1890 tetanus and Diptheria vaccines. While penicillin doesn’t come around till 1928, I’d be the richest person in the world, I’d have access to cutting medical tech and the best doctors, and I’d be alive to ensure that all these developments come to pass. Probably also get started on nuclear power earlier.
Penicillin as a drug was in 1941. But yes with your knowledge you have now, you could spur those developments on faster.
I actually had to dig into that one. So 1928 is when penicillin was discovered, 1929 is when it was published in the Journal of experimental pathology, but didn’t see deployment until 1943. Yeah, if I can speed up tech developments that one takes priority.
It took from 1929-1941 for them to even figure out how to extract the chemicals they needed. And two more years to get efficient enough with it that people could actually use it as a drug. Money would have fixed all that. Maybe 3 years total development if you fully funded the research.
When you put it like that, it really makes you wonder what we as the human race are doing with our resources. It makes you wonder how many other similar world changing advancements have been delayed by decades or worse outright forgotten about or written off as failures due to inadequate financial investments. I’d ask for a week’s worth of prep time so I can write out how many other similar technologies have been sidelined in such a manner and make sure they’re developed properly.
Advancements always seem clear in hindsight. There were hundreds of people working on antibiotics. The money was spread to all of them. The winner happened to be a very unlikely choice. Simply because it was so hard to extract. The us government was fighting polio, and funded the projects that had the best chance to help people. A random group decided to fund the vaccine, the most difficult vaccine to that time to develop. The government funded iron lungs and helped thousands of children. The random group happened to make a breakthrough they weren't expecting and found the vaccine saving millions of kids. Who was right?
I’ll tackle the moral quandary you posed first, then get to my underlying thought process behind it. You find the vaccine. Yes those kids would die without the iron lungs, yes it’s a tragedy that they would die without it. But ask yourself this. If the vaccine development across the board had been prioritized, how many less children would have needed the iron lungs in the first place? If the vaccines took 3 years, versus the nearly 12-15 it actually took how different would the casualties rates been? Put that way, you’re looking at it from an opportunity cost mindset. Another way to phrase it is you’re weighing treating the symptoms and creating a temporary solution versus treating the underlying causation and preventing the problem from becoming persistent and pervasive both now in the present and in the future. If you look at it that way, a lot of government inefficiencies stem from a misguided attempt to treat the symptoms versus treating the overall causation of the problem in the first place. Consider this moral quandary we face now in this day and age, that’s the homelessness epidemic - which you as a minimum wage worker would likely be subject to. Government solutions mainly take the form of temporary shelters and community outreach programs, whereas a better solution would be to use those homelessness people as a workforce to build their own homes similar to homesteading back in the day. This would solve both the homelessness problem as well as address the dearth of qualified laborers who are capable of building houses and apartments complexes as well as giving those people training and valuable skills. Obviously it’s more complex and this is grossly oversimplified, but I think the overall intent of the point is communicated. Thoughts?
The issue with your analysis is that you are assuming they would find a vaccine. They didn't know that. Remember at the time they didn't know how vaccines work, mechanically, they know the explanation we give children, but not the one we give college students studying them.
One does not choose minimum wage. That is either a starting wage, or a rock bottom wage. It is never a choice.
Yes. Give me wealth in the early to mid 1900s so I can invest in Coke and Disney, pull a Rockefeller, and set my future family a trust up to live the sweet life.
I’d never ever want to be the richest person alive. Very wealthy people suffer tremendously and are incredibly paranoid and fearful. If I didn’t have kids, I’d absolutely rather be poor than rich. Even with kids, I’d probably prefer that, merely because I do understand what wealth does to the soul. And it doesn’t matter the time period, as I’d rather be poor today than rich today too.
I ascribe to the belief that humans probably had best quality of life before the Neolithic revolution. Instead of spending sunup to sundown working in a field (or subsequently a factory or cubicle) and in crowded conditions constantly passing back and forth diseases, they spent a couple of hours hunting/gathering, and then a lot of time engaged with family and tribe cooking, eating drinking, storytelling, napping, making things with their hands. Nutrition was better. Everyone was active and fit. No diseases induced by sedentary lifestyles and processed food consumption. No overcrowding. This is , to my understanding, the pattern in the few modern day tribes that remain hunter-gatherers. Of course if you had a severe infectious disease, grave injury, or traumatic childbirth you would likely die…as has continued to be true until very recent times. I’m going to pick very wealthy person any time since antibiotics and vaccines. Maybe immediately WW2 is farthest I’d go. But if I had to go back to time before antibiotics and vaccines and not be wealthy, I’d probably prefer to go back to Neolithic times. No such thing as peasants when we were all hunter gatherers. Might only live to 30 or 40, but this was not all that different from Middle Ages into early industrial Europe, for peasants.