Your parent is judging that his lifestyle choices are better for him while the subject of the interview is judging that his lifestyle choices are better for everyone. I'm not saying who is right or wrong, but let's not conflate the two different points being made.

You're definitely right there is a distinction. I accept that, but still would argue why is it bad to make prescriptive suggestions for others lifestyles? He feels strongly that his choices are the right way (and is fighting against the notion that happiness and lower consumption, materialism, consumerism are mutually exclusive). Perhaps it is right for many people, and by making his judgements public, it will provide helpful information for others to be exposed to. Why is upsetting certain people by telling them that he disagrees with their lifestyle choices a bad thing, such that he should refrain from making these judgements public? OP seems to be saying, your judgements of my lifestyle hurt my feelings, and made me self conscious of my choices and that's bad... regardless of the positive effects of strongly and clearly stating his value judgements so as to cause people to critically examine their assumptions and choices. I think the OP's reaction is just the effect MMM would like to cause people to have, if it results in positive changes. If it rubs some people the wrong way, that's a side effect that's worth it. If people are confident in their choices they shouldn't care what this guy or anyone else says about them.

It's not really the same. If I pick a lifestyle for myself, that's not a judgment on other people's lifestyles. If I pick a lifestyle then start calling other people wasteful, that is a judgment on others. Be it true or not, that rubs some people the wrong way.

Personally I don't care if he judges me. He's living within a few tens of percent above the poverty line (based on his comments in this article). Of course the lifestyle of someone spending even $40k a year is going to seem wasteful to him.

> Be it true or not, that rubs some people the wrong way.

Huh? If it is true and it rubs some people the wrong way, is that bad?

> He's living within a few tens of percent above the poverty line

I'm not sure what living a few tens of percents above the poverty-line really means, unless you mean tenths of percents? Still, that is not what poverty is. There are more than enough people in the US living in actual poverty but I'm pretty sure this guy has it pretty good. This is because, and that is part of his message, that how good you have it in life is only in so far dependant on how much money you have to spend. It depends on all sorts of factors of relative wealth, of which he has collected a great amount in various ways.

> Huh? If it is true and it rubs some people the wrong way, is that bad?

Do you go around telling ugly people they are ugly? Fat people they are fat? Dummies they are dumb? Why not? Is it because it rubs them the wrong way, despite it being true? Is it wrong for them to feel that way, even if you are right? IMO it is neither wrong nor right to feel that way. It is just how you feel.

> Tens of percent

I meant tens of percent. According to the numbers he posted he's something like 20-30% above the poverty line. That's a few (3ish) tens of percent.

Is he indiscriminately leveling criticisms? Of characteristics people have no control over (ugly)? Or is he perhaps criticizing choices and behavior, of which people can change and pick and choose themselves? Hmm? Not a valid analogy you made there. Do people make value judgments about diet and exercise so as to help so called fat people get into better shape? All the time they do, yes. If I care about someone, and think they are making choices that are detrimental to themselves, I'll tell them. If you don't, because it may hurt their feelings, are you doing them a favor?

Poverty isn't a consumption level; poverty is when you're on the edge of losing everything.

I appreciate that you have your own personal definition. Mine is the one the US government uses.

Fortunately, despite your apparent wishes, you do not yet live in an authoritarian regime where the meaning of words is defined by the government. I recommend you switch to using the definition used by other speakers of English so you can participate productively in conversations about the issue.

The govt definition is income, not spending.

Income is only a part of the picture when it comes to poverty. Assets count too. Not having to pay rent or a mortgage because you own your house outright makes a significant difference, for example. Most people could have higher disposable income on a much lower salary if they didn't have to meet rent/mortgage, make car payments, service historic debts, etc.