Highest level of relative opportunity & prosperity for many? (when/where?)

[Lotus49]

OK, here's an example: my grandfather came home (to the U.S.) from WWII, had a wife and 4 kids, built a nice (4-story, 5-bedroom) house out in the country (not too far from a medium-sized city, which has since engulfed it), a nice piece of land - planted a couple hundred pecan trees, had some horses, etc. For the most part, the family's sole income was from my grandfather. They did very well financially. They bought a luxury RV in their old age, and travelled at will across North America. They had plenty of dough, and no worries. Prosperity abounded.

...the man retired (at a relatively young age) as a Pepsi delivery guy. He drove the trucks, and stocked the machines, etc. Obviously all this was only possible because it was the post-WWII USA economy. Only then (at least... compared to now) could somebody even get by doing that -and only that- nevermind achieve such a high standard of living.

Now, here I am in 2007 working as an air traffic controller... talking with my coworkers about "what are we gonna do?" when they force us to retire at 56 - which is still almost 3 decades away for most of us. I'm investing, I should be OK hopefully. But anyway, these people around me are making good money, but seemingly living paycheck to paycheck, and talking about 'working until the day they die' being the required norm, nowadays.

So anyway, obviously throughout history we have to consider they didn't have high-speed internet access in ancient Egypt, but the question is; which time & location throughout all of human history offered the 'common man' (as my grandfather was) the opportunity to prosper so well... so flippin' easily? Plus it's important to consider... RELATIVE to what was available at the time.

Or, is the post-WWII era United States just... 'it', when it comes to this kinda thing? Surely there must be other comments, other ideas. There have always been empires that have plundered, risen above the other nations, and have benefited. Babylon, Rome, the British Empire at it's peak, etc. Each had their day, and life was great for those back home.

So, forget about technological advances... based on what they had at the time, if you had to be born into the lower class, which location(s) and time(s) would best suit you, with regards to 'living like a king', in your own little personal space?

 

[Imrahil91]

Western world today.

 

[Disenfrancised]

If your talking about the average citizen of a nation, then probably 19th- first half of the 20th century america, what with the incredably cheap land and all (though it's still quite easy to make your fortune). For the rest of the world and history you got a lot less long term assets for your money. Being flush with all the world's cash helped those americans too .

If your talking about the elite and outskirts of a nation, then perhaps being around during growth of the Honourable East India Company was a way for a young man with nothing but daring to make a huge pile of cash. But life wasn't so great for the common man back in britain (though relative to the rest of europe it was pretty nice).

 

[Traitorfish]

Babylon, Rome, the British Empire at it's peak, etc. Each had their day, and life was great for those back home.

Not likely. Archaic empires like that relied on rigid social structure and the definite distinctions of classes. While limited social mobility could occur, most people lived and died in a single social class (or possibly a lower one- the exception to the usual limit on social mobility has always been downward movement).
British society has only become significantly socially mobile in the last 50 years, thanks in no small part to the welfare state. Unfortunately, the Tories and New Labour are doing there best to pull this to shreds and take us back to the middle ages. And, ironically, this is being done in the interests of economic freedom.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Atlantis!!!

 

[Plotinus]

Not likely. Archaic empires like that relied on rigid social structure and the definite distinctions of classes. While limited social mobility could occur, most people lived and died in a single social class (or possibly a lower one- the exception to the usual limit on social mobility has always been downward movement).
British society has only become significantly socially mobile in the last 50 years, thanks in no small part to the welfare state. Unfortunately, the Tories and New Labour are doing there best to pull this to shreds and take us back to the middle ages. And, ironically, this is being done in the interests of economic freedom.

What he said, although I'm afraid I quite like New Labour, so I'd restrict those last comments to the Tories were I to make them.

Anyone who's read Marx and Engels' The condition of the working class in England shouldn't be under any illusions that life was great for those back home at the peak of the British empire. Much the same can be said for the US in the early twentieth century. Great if you were some kind of white speculating land owner, pretty rubbish if you were a black cotton picker in Mississippi. Things were certainly better after the war in the US than they were before it, but there was still terrible poverty in many areas.

In my view, the baby boomer generation (ie, my parents' generation) are the ones who had it luckiest. They benefited from the social revolutions of the post-war era which made life fairer and more liberated, and they benefited from the advantages of consumerism and capitalism. Problems such as global warming, overpopulation, Aids etc hadn't been invented yet. It's the next generation (ie, me) who are lumbered with all the fallout, such as a super-heated property market that means we can't afford to buy homes and have to live with said baby boomers well into adulthood. The result is that, for perhaps the first time in a long time in the west, we have a generation much of whom will probably never be as wealthy as their parents (I'm sure I won't); they certainly aren't as wealthy at such a young age. So I would largely agree with the OP, but move the "golden" age a decade or two later.

 

[Verbose]

Common man/globally:
These days.

Comman man/the West:
Post-WWII, from 45-70 in the US, from 55-70 Europe/Japan.

That is if we are talking absolute level.

If we want to talk about relative rise in opportunities and prosperity, the effects of the long boom from about 1840-1870 were probably as dramatic, at least for westerners.

Otoh no one, nowhere, have been able to live as pleasant a life, in affluence, with plenty of opportunity and action if one who wanted it, as a nobleman in 18th century France. Then life truly was your oyster, provided you had a title to you name.