Earlier quoted context omitted.
"it is highly unlikely that you will achieve a fraction of the success of your more well funded peers" Just goes to show that the human psyche cares more about relative prosperity than absolute prosperity. This is well documented in research. Still, I have to question why you would prefer to be 'rich' in a place without running water rather than be 'poor' in America (where the poor people only have one TV and have to…
You seem to consider quality of life as something you can measure by material gain. Nobody cares about televisions and cars when they come down with cancer and can't afford treatment. Being rich in America is certainly great. Being poor in America is not that much different than being poor in the developing world, aside from the better hand-me-downs.
"In high-income countries more than two-thirds of all people live beyond the age of 70 and die of chronic diseases: cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancers, diabetes or dementia. Lung infection remains the only leading infectious cause of death.
...
In low-income countries less than a quarter of all people reach the age of 70, and nearly a third of all deaths are among children under 14. Although cardiovascular diseases together represent the leading cause of death in these countries, infectious diseases (above all HIV/AIDS, lung infections, tuberculosis, diarrheal diseases and malaria) together claim more lives. Complications of pregnancy and childbirth together continue to be a leading cause of death, claiming the lives of both infants and mothers."
Still think that being poor in America is as terrible as being poor in the developing world? How many kids do you know of that die of diarrhea in America? I'm not saying either situation is a panacea, but seriously, everyone in this country won the 'ovarian lottery' just by being here.
Anyway, this is getting way off topic...