How many would actually want to trade places with George? Despite his massive library, organ, and so on, I submit that any modern with a laptop and an internet connection has a vastly better book and music collection than he did. For all his riches, he didn't have air conditioning; he had to suffer through the North Carolina summers just like the poorest of us. Vanderbilt did travel the world, but without the airplane, he had to do so at a snail's pace.
Perhaps most shockingly, he suffered "sudden death from complications following an appendectomy" at the age of 51. Whatever your precise story about the cause of rising lifespans, it's safe to say that George's Bane wouldn't be fatal today.
That is a pretty cool thought, though it's worth noting that economic libertarians and economists rarely miss a chance to gush over the powers of economic progress. The core belief of economists is that as an economy grows, everyone benefits--the poor today may lead tough lives, but the fabric on their backs is of a quality Tudor queens could envy. Two weeks ago, Steven Horowitz at Austrian Economists examined data over the past 15 years of the presence things such as refrigerators, televisions, and phones in US households under the poverty line. "The overall lesson is clear: lives for Americans below the poverty line continue to get better in terms of what they are able to put in their households and make use of everyday." Horowitz makes the conclusion that "Life for the average American is better today than 35 years ago, life for poor Americans is better than it was 35 years ago, and poor Americans today largely live better than the average American did 35 years ago."
So although times are tough for average Americans, it might comfort some to know they would've been worse off in another time period.