[hemdawgz]

I suppose this misunderstanding boils down to semantics. By definition they are objectively better off. However, past a baseline threshold for human survival it's argued that a person's subjective perception of well-being is relative to that of others around him. Objectively, we are many times better off than we were pre-industrialization in almost every way imaginable, but does that make us many times happier or more satisfied than people who are unaware of such a standard of living? The argument is that they would perceive their well-being as much worse if they were aware, even if nothing has objectively changed.

[Pyxl101]

Where does it end? Everyone's a king living in their own castle, and still everyone's unhappy because the rich have planets of their own?

Where things are objectively seems like a fine way to compare.

[nitrogen]

Rather than comparing the availability of modern conveniences, it's more informative to compare stability. Are modern lives more stable in the face of unexpected events than historic lives? Is getting sick for a few days and then getting better worse now, or worse historically?

I would argue that the levels of instability make modern stresses higher. Even though there are many luxuries to help deal with these stresses, they are maintained only tenuously. The slightest disruption to a break-even lifestyle can result in disaster, and even if everything goes perfectly there may not be any spare cash to save for an eventual escape.

[eru]

> The slightest disruption to a break-even lifestyle can result in disaster, and even if everything goes perfectly there may not be any spare cash to save for an eventual escape.

Have you tried living in a county with a social safety system?