What is often missing in these discussions is a deeper recognition that money is not simply a neutral measuring stick across time. It is a living system subject to political decisions structural changes and cultural context. Trying to draw a straight line between shillings in 1843 and dollars in 2025 inevitably collapses under the weight of everything that has changed in between.

Gold comparisons as you mentioned at least ground the exercise in something tangible but even gold is embedded in its own historical context of supply demand and utility. A Victorian laborer holding .2 ounces of gold had access to a very different set of opportunities and constraints than someone in 2025 holding the nominal equivalent in today's market. Prices do not live in a vacuum and neither do people.

The heart of this debate is not whether living standards have improved in the most visible ways. Running water electricity and internet are transformative realities. The question is whether the economic architecture that governs access to these basics has delivered proportionate improvement in overall well being for the median person. In that regard the evidence is mixed. Gains in certain goods have been offset by massive increases in the cost of housing medical care and higher education. Those drags on economic mobility are as real as Victorian coal smoke.