This is actually a really interesting point. In some ways even moderatly poor people in a Western country are better of than the Caesars of Ancient Rome, especially the availability of medical care is something I would never want to trade. In other ways even the richest and most powerful people today will never be able to have comparable power, in terms of political and cultural influence. It would be an interesting excercise to come up with a definition of wealth that somehow accounts for this.

It is strange! One of the problems some moderately poor people have is eating too much food.

For the first time in history, it is now possible to be obese and malnourished simultaneously.

malnourishment != undernourishment

I'm pretty sure this is not specific for the modern age, but perhaps the shift from undernourishment to malnourishment is.

A paradox of modern society is how a greater equality in material well-being has led to a greater feeling of inequality as people have more and more reference points.

That's a good point, and also speaks to the futility of trying to define wealth in dollar terms, even when adjusting for inflation. An inflation-adjusted dollar in 2019 buys more than an inflation-adjusted dollar in 2000, even (iPhones alone!)

> An inflation-adjusted dollar in 2019 buys more than an inflation-adjusted dollar in 2000, even

Depends. Does it buy more concrete? Does it buy more rocket ships? Does it buy more childcare? Does it buy more iPhones?

Just depends on what you're talking about.