> Which is neither here, nor there. It's actually kind of the same argument you are making: Look at the "poor" 90%, except in global terms. > Wealth is social

> Which is neither here, nor there. It's actually kind of the same argument you are making: Look at the "poor" 90%, except in global terms. > Wealth is social, not absolute. I don't know what "wealth is social" is supposed to mean. I'm talking about material wealth, not "spiritual wealth". The things I can buy, the services I can afford to use, etc. That's what income and purchasing power is about. If you want to compare by other measures, don't start by talking about income, otherwise you're shifting the goalpost. Talk about "Gross National Happiness" or something like that. > When everybody else lives in a proper house, we're not thankful that we live in a trailer because in 10.000 B.C we'd been living in a cave Except "everybody else" isn't living in a proper house. The worldwide standard of living today is far below that of the US. To compare good and bad you need a reference frame. > Life is not a race to make the most money. Some people make it, but it's not inherently that. Of course it isn't, but let's dig a bit deeper. Let's start by making any amount of money, because as you say, most people live paycheck to paycheck. What does money represent to someone who doesn't have any? It's their lifetime, their freedom. You can't say no to a shit job if you need the money. You can't take a vacation if you don't have the money. You can't eat the things you want if you don't have the money. You can't live where you want if you don't have the money. Sure, at some very high point (tens of millions of dollars) your basic lifestyle can't really any better, but at that point you will probably still find joy in investing into companies or charity. You still can use more money to live a better life.