> I'm sure you mean $100k inflation adjusted. Otherwise $100k 1oo years ago would purchase a lot more wealth, you just wouldn't have access to modern technology.
Huh? In what sense is modern technology not wealth?
Moreover, much of what passed for "wealth" in the past is common place today.
Correct, but to compare equivalent goods, $100k would get you much more land 100 years ago than now. The point of my comment was to say that while yes, the standard of living has gone up considerably in the past century, $1 in 1909 was 'worth' more to 1909 citizens than $1 today.
I didn't mean to imply technology isn't wealth, just that you had to factor it out for my point to be made.
Huh? In what sense is modern technology not wealth?
Moreover, much of what passed for "wealth" in the past is common place today.