What I find most unfortunate in these situations is the number of people with a response to the effect of: > "I worked at [physically-demanding job] for $n/hr

What I find most unfortunate in these situations is the number of people with a response to the effect of: > "I worked at [physically-demanding job] for $n/hr [where n≤other person's/current minimum wage] and I didn't [complain/think it was that bad/die], so what is the problem?" The problem with this is: 1) In the absence of any addl. context, it's a poor means of objectively determining employee well-being. All else being equal, shouldn't "we" (humans, as a species) be using an ever-increasing bar of basic well-being in context to historical norms and improvements as the measure? Besides, there's any number of factors that influence what is "reasonable" (regional cost of living, changes to inflation/buying power, an individual's capacity to work, etc.) 2) People can simultaneously feel grateful AND discouraged in their current circumstances. To be glad you have a job and to feel stung by two generations of stalled economic mobility are not mutually exclusive emotions. 3) Both sides can experience entirely sincere feelings of "rightness". That does not prove, deny, or change any underlying facts. 4) Being (AKA feeling) "right" bears little or no benefit to anyone. It means a temporary rush of dopamine and adrenaline. No ones life has usually been materially improved by that event.