Democracy is ostensibly majority rule (don't nitpick).
The majority of people are poor.
Therefore, democracy is the rule of the poor (Aristotle).
We do not live in a democracy.
I think you're missing what the parent is saying: since the majority are poor, they plainly don't rule (since then they wouldn't remain poor). If democracy is defined as "majority rule," and we plainly see that the majority in the US do NOT rule, then the US is not a democracy.
See Gramsci's work on hegemony. Or (slightly easier) Tressel's "Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" which makes exactly the point about how the poor become convinced that it's better to give more things to the rich.
If Party D promises free money to the poor and Party R does not, do you expect no poor people to vote for Party R? What if Party R has other things about it which appeal to the poor?
The poor have the opportunity to vote, and rule indirectly, and yet for many reasons often vote against their own best economic interests. Some of those reasons are good, and some are not.
"For example, in 2005, 63.7% of those living in poverty had cable or satellite television. In some cases the report even said that people currently living in poverty were actually better off than middle class people of the recent past. For example, in 2005, 78.3% of households living in poverty had air conditioning, whereas in 1970, 36.0% of all households had air conditioning." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#O...
So in 35 years, 78% of the poor had something that only 36% of households had previously.
I don't know, some of these things can be attributed to the falling cost of technology and culture. Air conditioners are seen as necessary, instead of a luxury. It may never have even occurred to some people that they should prioritize affording money for one. Poor people could probably afford smartphones too when they first came out, but they only became common when everyone had one, and costs came down. Personally, I don't think quality of life is measured by air conditioning and cable TV either.
Yes - real cost (cost in hours worked) of necessities, and even former luxuries, has declined dramatically, and standard of living for the poor has increased dramatically. That's the point.
If you go to Mexico, you'll see people living in much hotter conditions without air conditioning (but they still have satellite TV).
Cable TV and air conditioning show the shifting standard of living that represents "poor" in the united states, and illustrate that a large percentage of "poor" definitely have the necessities (shelter in particular), as opposed to the "absolute poverty" who lack basic necessities of food/shelter/access to health care.
Quality of life is a different question, and very difficult to measure.
Most poor people have better amenities and work conditions. Probably even in the areas you mentioned. Basically, this is similar to the whole question of whether you'd be better off as a king in the middle ages, or an average joe now; or the idea that relatively speaking everything is better than ever.