I'm not sure if you mean to be hitting on old Marxist tropes on purpose or if you've just absorbed some of the talking points, but I highly doubt that any poll of people who lived outside of "western standards of affluence" and then later inside of them would reveal that people actually like affluence.

Yes, median household income has stagnated in the U.S. since 2000, while both the low-end and the high-end have improved. Can you support your claim that it this correlates with "neoliberal" policies? Where in the world has life gotten better that you think is a better model? Can you please name a place on earth where something other than free-market capitalism has proven successful?

I never claimed that no one in the U.S. or U.K. was in poverty. I claimed fewer were than before, and fewer are than in countries will less access to technology and capital.

Your other point -- that people in extreme poverty can actually be happier -- well, I don't know what to say. Feeding starving people more often seems like an intrinsically worthy goal to me. I can't imagine the pain of not having enough food for my children.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but :

>> 15% of US households cannot consistently afford food, .. 5% hunger

What food are we talking about ? because basic grains, etc - the kind of meals indians eat, for ex.(and are very healthy and pretty tasty) - are extremely cheap. So is 15% possible ?

Doesn't India provide food subsidies to its poorest citizens?

Why would it be hard to believe that wealthy Western countries feature extreme or even abject poverty?

America had some huge tent cities filled with previously not-homeless families living in them following the 2009 meltdown.