It seems to be humanity's nature to relentlessly seek ways to improve living standards, generation after generation. Consider the gains made during the past 500 years, especially since the Industrial Revolution, and the insane rate of progress during the past decade. The delta of progress is rapidly accelerating.
Of course we are much better off than people who lived centuries ago. But the leap in living standards is nonlinear -- meaning it is likely to happen much faster in the future.
All Temporal Arguments Are Two-Sided: Looking at the issue of whether today's poor are “wealthier” than long-dead royalty is only half of the timeline. The other half is to think about what the poor will enjoy a few centuries from now that even the 0.01 percent lack today.
I doubt the lowest economic strata will be laughing to themselves about the hardships of the wealthiest people today. “Imagine, they died of cancer and heart disease, had to birth their own babies, and even drove their own cars. How primitive can you get!”
No, not really.
That is why none of the poor think to themselves: “Huzzah! I am wealthier than French King Louis XIV!” Nor do any lament, “Alas! I am enjoying less technological advantages than even the poorest schlump to be born in the year 2414. . . woe is me.”
Comparing yourself to kings who lived four centuries ago -- or to paupers to be born four centuries from now -- is irrelevant.
Wealth Is Relative: Mencken’s quote at the start of this article points out the simple reality of wealth -- it is relative to one’s peers. The silliness of the historical argument is that it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how people envision their own financial well-being.
Wealth is, and always will be, a relative concept.
That is why Menken, only partially tongue-in-cheek, defines wealth as having $100 more than your brother-in-law. We try to keep up with the Jones because they are our contemporary geographic and social peers.