would you rather been born in your actual birth year, or 50 years earlier?

would you rather have been born in your actual birth year, or 50 years earlier?

  • the year of my birth

    Votes: 26 86.7%
  • 50 years before

    Votes: 4 13.3%

  • Total voters
    30

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,412
5,848
136
my grandpa is 50 years older than me and told me today that almost everything was better when he was my age in the mid-1960's. he feels sorry for people who were born after the 1930's.

would you switch your birth year 50 years earlier? i probably wouldn't still do it, wouldn't want to take my chances with the polio.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
I'd take the challenge even though I'd probably be dead already from medical issues. I believe there were a great many more opportunities for people of poor or modest means.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,224
5,800
126
Maybe 20 years earlier, which would put me at the beginning of the Baby Boom.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,137
12,456
136
Well...your grandpa is right...sort of. The 60's were good, as long as you didn't get drafted and sent to Vietnam...
There was a fuck-ton ofl opportunity for people willing to work, college was still expensive, just not AS expensive as it is today. (not only comparing 1960s dollars with 2018 dollars)

https://cei.org/blog/mind-boggling-increase-tuition-1960-even-students-learn-less-and-less

And...in the later 60's..free love. Hippie chicks were willing to ball just about anyone.

"Hi, my name is Boomer. Wanna ball?" was about all the game needed...
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
13,746
2,263
126
1922 which means i would have been 17 at the start of WW2. No tnx.

Although, i would have looked dapper in black shirt and boots ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: IronWing

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
13,746
2,263
126
1922 which means i would have been 17 at the start of WW2. No tnx.

Although, i would have looked dapper in black shirt and boots ...
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,957
8,204
126
The Great Depression. Good times... Science progress was more impressive for the layman. Would have gone from horse travel to space travel. Vaudeville was pretty cool too. Pollution was bad, but easier to escape. Kind of a toss up I think. I'm cool where I'm at, but 50 years earlier would be fine too.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
30,031
45,261
136
The Great Depression. Good times... Science progress was more impressive for the layman. Would have gone from horse travel to space travel. Vaudeville was pretty cool too. Pollution was bad, but easier to escape. Kind of a toss up I think. I'm cool where I'm at, but 50 years earlier would be fine too.
I'd say it was harder to escape back then, roads and infrastructure wasn't up to what we have now same thing for automobiles, less worker rights as well
 

Iron Woode

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 10, 1999
30,994
12,541
136
I'd say it was harder to escape back then, roads and infrastructure wasn't up to what we have now same thing for automobiles, less worker rights as well
Population would be 30 - 40% less. Taxes would be low. Jobs (post wwII) would be plentiful. economy booming. much less crime. racial issues abound unfortunately.
 

Gryz

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2010
1,551
204
106
The Baby Boomers have had it easiest. That's the people born between 1945 and 1955. But the people born between 1935 and 1945 had a lot of their benefits too.

The only downside is that they were kids when WW2 was going on. (Not a big deal in the US, but being a kid in Europe in '39-'45 was not fun. Being a kid in Asia in those years was probably worse). But the people born between 1930 and 1955 have had the best/cheapest education, the easiest circumstance to make a career. They got to retire at ridiculous young ages. (Some as young as 52. For years, babyboomers got to retire at age 57 in my country). Their generation built up the national debts in many countries. They lived to see a lot of improvements in the sixties and seventies. I don't think they have a lot to complain about.

People born in the 18th century or earlier had a completely different life. Without the luxury of modern life. Without decent healthcare. (Pneumonia still killed loads of people. All the diseases like polio, tbc, were around. Not fun). No cars, no planes, no tv, no Internet.

People born between 1900 and 1935 didn't have an easy time either. My grandfather was born in 1898. Live through both WW1 and WW2. (Yeah, you yanks don't care. But for some countries, WW1 was actually a lot worse than WW2. E.g. ask the Belgians). Basically your whole life between 20 years and 50 years old was fucked up by war.

The people born after 1955 are having less benefits than the babyboomers did. I've heard the generation born between 1955 and 1965 referred to as "the lost generation". They started their careers in the eighties, when the economies had slowed down. Public services like cheap/free education were taken away. By the time the lost generation is 60+ years, they have to work until 70 years old before they can retire.

I'm not saying the lost generation had it worse than the people born after 1965. In some ways they had it easier, in some ways they had it harder. I'm just saying that the generations between 1935 and 1955 had some real benefits compared to the people born after them. So yeah, if "born 50 years earlier" means you would have been born between '35 and '55, maybe it would've been better to be born earlier. If 50 years earlier means being born between 1900 and 1935, then no, you definitely don't wanna be born then.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,413
12,593
126
www.anyf.ca
hard to decide but think I'll take the actual birth year. Some things were better before such as the more laid back aspect of life, and less litigation and other BS of that nature, more jobs, less education requirements to get a job, lower costs of living so only one person has to work, etc. But some things are better now, like technology. Even the things we take for granted like air conditioning and dishwashers. I can't imagine having to do dishes by hand every day.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Hard to say what time was best
I was a baby boomer, in a family without much money, and there were great opportunities for me with the antipoverty programs of the sixties. I got a college degree with very little debt, even if converted to today's dollars. Probably being born in the 30s would have been a good time. You would have missed both world wars and and probably Vietnam, and been starting your wage earning years in the 50s when jobs were relatively easy to find and prices were still low.

The only thing I would say for sure, is that someone born since 1990 or so, unless born into a rich family, has a difficult row to hoe. Well paying jobs with good benefits are still difficult to find, medical costs and college tuition are both a disgrace, and housing costs are expensive as well. The only good thing, and I think something overlooked by young people of today, is that they do not have to face the draft.

Edit: speaking as a white male here. Obviously the answer would be very different for a woman or minority person.
 

snoopy7548

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2005
8,122
5,144
146
Actual birth year, hands down. Growing up/being a kid with videogames, computers, arcades, the internet, and cable TV is probably around 1000x better than being born in the middle of the Great Depression and being a kid during WW2.

Though it would be awesome to have a company-funded pension and witness all the advances in technology and the space race, but then I'd have to live through the 70s too... Disco... :eek:
 

Stopsignhank

Platinum Member
Mar 1, 2014
2,440
1,766
136
First off, I always love the idea of "Things were better back in the good old days" thing. The movie Pleasantville shows how great things were in the good old days, if you were a straight white male. If you were not a straight white male, well things weren't so great for you.

Off my soapbox and to answer the question. I would be born in 1915, so I would be trying to get a job during the great depression. No thanks, I will stay with my actual birth date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dingster1

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,164
1,637
126
I was born in 1980, if I had been born 50 years earlier, there's a strong chance I would have died from starvation or disease during childhood.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,957
8,204
126
I was born in 1980, if I had been born 50 years earlier, there's a strong chance I would have died from starvation or disease during childhood.
On the bright side, you wouldn't have to go to work tomorrow ;^)
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,516
3,225
136
Most of us are around the same age with join dates coinciding with the rush in popularity of the custom home PC. I'm glad to be around for it.