I've called that argument "Maslow's Smartphone", after an instance where someone literally gave the affordability of smartphones as an argument for present-day wealth, utterly ignoring that both:
1. Telecoms, and increasingly smartphones, are not a luxury but a necessity for functioning in most of today's societies.
2. That a smartphone of and by itself is not sufficient for a thriving existence, with reference to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: food, shelter,
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2vwfb6/maslows...>
There's also Maslow's Swimming Pool, which surfaced in the context of the Greek austerity crisis of the 2010s:
Succinctly: "Yes, we've got a swimming pool. But that won't feed my children."
https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-toll-of-greek-austerity/audi...>
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3ey7d1/maslows...>
Another variant is to note people showing up to relief services (e.g., food bank, natural disaster aid stations) in SUVs or luxury cars. The fact that someone with evidence of past prosperity is now seeking aid doesn't mean that they're undeserving of same, or should be scorned. It's that misfortune is reaching far beyond its usual populations (the multi-generational poor, disabled, addicted, disempowered groups, etc.).
Julian Bond also calls out self-actualisation snake oil:
There's a special part of hell reserved for the snake oil selling charlatans who push some woo called Reversed Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's much loved by people who talk about "The Secret", life style coaches and executive training. "Be a nice self-actualised person, you'll be full of esteem which will allow you to love others who won't threaten your safety and so the universe will fulfill your bodies needs."
https://web.archive.org/web/20190115030839/https://plus.goog...>
Yet another realisation (also through a G+ discussion) is that Maslow's Hierarchy is best considered not merely as a set of essential and nourishing goods and services, but as being those elements paired with security in those elements. The hand that offers whilst threatening, withdrawing, or threatening is not nurturing but the definition of abuse and trauma.
Living on a knife's edge, at all times, is not tenable.
So, rather than the pyramid of physiological needs, safety, belonging and love, esteem, and self-actualisation, I see:
- Physiological needs + security in those needs.
- Social needs + security in those.
- Esteem (recognition for accomplishments) + security in that status.
- Self-actualisation + security in those achievements.
Maslow splits out security as its own level, but that jars with my own experience of noting times where one or more (and in the worst instances: all) such needs were fulfilled either in a highly contingent manner ("I'll give you X if you do Y", or "If you do Y I'll withhold X"). That's the extreme of manipulation and precarity.
Finally, Yonatan Zunger's essay on "financial shock wealth" is an excellent reframing of the wealth/poverty discussion (from 2017):
https://scribe.rip/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6d...>