Thank you for providing sources. Though you’re focused solely on money, which I think is a pretty poor measure for how “better off” one is (and was my original criticism of the article). Especially when you’re ignoring the percentage of people living in poverty and massive income inequality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_in...
Furthermore, making more money can be offset by having to spend more money for basic things like healthcare.
I’d say happiness is a much better indicator of how “better off” one is than how much money one earns. The happiness index takes a much broader view with several indicators (of which GPD per capita is but one).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#Interna...
You’re entitled to valuing different things. But the whole point of my original comment is that I find the focus on money over people to not be something to celebrate. Clearly you (and the author) disagree.
> High-skill professionals, entrepreneurs, specialized trades, creative workers, young people, immigrants...
Despite the ellipsis, that doesn’t really answer the question. Those definitions are so vague, they could all together describe a single person.
> immigrants
Are you really arguing, with the current state of the USA, that immigrants are “better off”? I’m somehow doubt the ones who are being grabbed and sent to jail without due process every day would agree with you.
> If you make nebulous complaints
It’s not “nebulous”. Read the article. It’s in context.
> so expect that kind of rebuttal
If you think someone made a bad argument, do better. That’s what the HN guidelines explicitly ask of us. Responding with a bad answer because you think that’s what someone did does not benefit the discussion.
Again, if your objective with a discussion is to “win”, there are other forums better suited for that.