Extreme. The poor can refer to the bottom quintile of socioeconomic class. We don't have to jump to the bottom tenth of a percent. In that view, the comment is valid. The bottom earners in America earn more than most people on the planet. And have better infrastructure.

The bottom quintile had a mean household income of just $12,000 in 2016 (https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/09/1...). I'm struggling to understand how such a household could afford to pay rent on $1,000 a month, let alone afford "luxuries" such as doctor visits. And, yes, they would qualify for SNAP assistance, but in my (second hand) experience it's not much and decreases faster than income increases (i.e., and increase in monthly salary of $x/mo results in a loss of food assistance greater than $x/mo).

Ok, done. 15% are 'food insecure' which is a broad range including 'skip a meal sometimes'.

15% worldwide live on less than 1.25 a day. So again, comparing America's poor with the world is like night and day.

I'll take your response as agreeing with me that saying that one tenth of one percent of Americans are hungry was completely and utterly wrong :).

If only that had been said. It was the trifecta "hungry, homeless and diseased" that was referenced.