[StillBored]

Richer if you put more value on having an addictive piece of electronics in your back pocket rather than a few acres of land to be self sufficient on.

There are definite improvements (a fair amount of medical science), but I'm not sure on balance that the planetary destruction/extinctions/etc outweigh them. So, using made up GDP/capita numbers for justification that the world is "improving" is tenuous.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I do, as do most people. When you hear talk about subsistence farmers who live on less than a dollar a day and don't have running water, that's what the "few acres of land to be self sufficient on" lifestyle looks like in the absence of a strong market economy.

[StillBored]

Have you looked at the homeless in your city? Sure they might be fed with cheap food, but they are living under bridges. So, that is what a "strong market economy" gets you too.

So don't compare the worse case subsistence farmer, with what was middle class in the US a few decades ago, where suburban houses on a couple acres were affordable my the top 70% of the population. We have more trinkets, but the price of basic necessities are becoming more "expensive" every day.

[SpicyLemonZest]

These are the average case subsistence farmers. The worst case ones live even harder lives than an homeless person, very often dying of starvation after a bad harvest.

The middle class in the US a few decades ago lived pretty good lives, but were very much dependent on market economies and innovation for their standard of living.

[jerf]

You can easily have "a few acres of land to be self-sufficent on". Clearly you don't value that, so you don't have it. If you actually value it, go get it.