TIL The initial rate in 1866 for messages sent along transatlantic cable was $10 a word, with a ten word minimum.
TIL The initial rate in 1866 for messages sent along transatlantic cable was $10 a word, with a ten word minimum.
When the first transatlantic cable was successfully laid in the summer of 1858, two continents buzzed with the promise of instant communication.
The initial rate in 1866 for messages sent along the transatlantic cable was ten dollars a word, with a ten word minimum, meaning that a skilled workman of the day would have to set aside ten weeks' salary in order to send a single message. As a practical matter, this limited cable use to governments (transmissions from the British and American governments had priority under the terms of their agreements with Field's telegraph companies) and big businesses (who made up about 90 percent of telegraph traffic in the early years).
Businesses quickly turned to the use of commercial codes through which one word could convey an entire message. For example, the word "festival" as telegraphed by one fireworks manufacturer meant "a case of three mammoth torpedoes." And for truly urgent information, price was considered no object: New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley spent $5,000 (over $65,000 in 2003 dollars) in 1870 to transmit one report about the Franco-Prussian War. During three months in 1867, the transatlantic cable sent 2,772 commercial messages, for a revenue that averaged $2,500 a day. But this represented just five percent of capacity, so the rate for sending a telegram was halved to $46.80 for ten words, a move which boosted daily revenue to $2,800.
You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
In many ways yes, in many ways no. It's hard to say where the balance lies, whether it's better to be rich in the far past, or average income in the present. In terms of subjectively feeling happy I think it's probably better to be rich in the past.
It’s always better to be rich I’d guess but I’d rather be middle income now with AC and internet acces than 100 years ago
Oh if you're talking about being the same income level at different time periods then it's almost always better to be in the newer era.
People really be underestimating the value of cheap access to antibiotics. We only have had them for like a century, and it tripled average life expectancy and reduced global infant mortality to a tenth. No matter the income level, 100 years ago there would've been a fair chance one didn't make it to puberty.
Some things have gotten better, but some have gotten worse. I’ve always thought that the analogy of older flagship phones fits this perfectly.
Is your current budget android more common on the streets than a flagship from 4 years ago ever was? Yes. Does it have a comparable processor, and camera? Maybe. Is the build quality better? Hell no.
Why I buy flagship phones and keep them for 5 years.
I have a microwave, but I don't have a whole mansion filled with servants.
In terms of availability of information and communication, definitely. In terms of cost of living and housing and its relation to average income, I'd wager not.
Hard to be better off than the rich of any era in such relative economic terms without being rich yourself.
Even if just for the stench of their unwashed bodies
Yeah, all those Nigerian princes can email me as much as they want now.