[spidersenses]

Of course, there will always be someone who has it way worse or lives inside an underdeveloped region but this isn't some kind of competition. To observe the lifelong negative effects of growing up poor one doesn't have to grow up in absolute squalor.

Living in a large German city, I also never owned a car and didn't feel poor for the fact.

[Turing_Machine]

> Of course, there will always be someone who has it way worse or lives inside an underdeveloped region

It's not "someone". It's the majority of the world's population. 150 years ago, it was all of the world's population, including the rich people.

Was everyone severely traumatized back then?

[Rinzler89]

>Living in a large German city, I also never owned a car and didn't feel poor for the fact.

Lacking a car doesn't make one poor, and if you're growing up in one of Germany's largest cities (where one does not need a car to survive), you're already in an incredibly fortunate position in terms of lottery of birth compared to the rest of the people on the planet.

[MichaelZuo]

I think the parent is pointing out that this description is of someone literally above average.

In no other circumstances would it be referred to in this way.

e.g. it’s like saying someone with above average work ethic is ‘lazy’, someone with above average intelligence is ‘stupid’, etc…

[amanaplanacanal]

Well sure. Poor depends on where you are too. Poor in an American city can still be rich compared to poor in a very poor country. I don’t think that negates the point though.

[MichaelZuo]

Does ‘lazy’ and ‘stupid’ also depend on location?

i.e. at a conference of neurosurgeons perhaps the vast majority of the HN userbase, including perhaps everyone commenting here, would be considered ‘lazy’ and ‘stupid’.

If it’s fine to refer to people in this manner, depending on their physical location, then I think it would have some pretty big implications.