[verbalist]

I think this is wrong:

>53. If I had a choice of living in a society where I was materially much better off than I am now, but was among the poorest, or in one where I was the richest, but much worse off than I am now, I’d take the first option. | It’s absolute poverty you want to avoid, not relative poverty.

[pluies_public]

This is one of these situations where the first (pg's) choice is rationally better, but has also been shown to result in higher chances of low self-esteem and depression. It's very hard to shake off the feeling of being "among the lowest", even though in absolute terms you're perfectly well-off.

[rayiner]

It's not not necessarily irrational, it just seems that way because the hypothetical is artificially simplified. In the real world, relative wealth imbalances lead to power imbalances, which have global ramifications.

This is the heart of the current American malaise. Americans don't feel wronged because their standard of living is so terrible (it's not). They feel wronged because they feel that the rich have leveraged their wealth in a way that captures a disproportionate share of new wealth creation--wealth their labor is ultimately responsible for creating.

[escherba]

The point pg is trying to make is that seeking relative material wealth with respect to others is akin to seeking pure status/power without having to do the work required to get it. It is all too easy to move to Costa Rica or wherever and live like a king for $10 a day.

[msellout]

Costa Rica isn't so cheap anymore, BTW.

[saosebastiao]

While humans may, in general, side with you, I think it is sad that a favorable comparison with others could make one more happy than a healthy and poverty free life.