Ugh, there is a reason that you would be admonished for this argument and it's not because you are speaking some sort of uncomfortable truth. It's because this is sloppy, lazy thinking, and it has traditionally been used as a bludgeon to retard progress for the many in favor of the few.
If you are going to talk about how rich even the poorest American currently is so as to intimate that they shouldn't complain about their circumstances you have to answer one question: Why now? Why is this standard of living reasonable, and an improved one not? Why was it fair of them to make it this far, but any better would be unreasonable. The entirety of human history has been one long story of progress, and at every time I am sure there have been people arguing that everyone has it good enough and working to allow more people to have "more" is wrong. Why don't we just stop after the establishment of agriculture? Hey, now people don't have to risk their lives hunting. Why not stop after we create homes and settlements. Now we don't have to live in caves. Isn't that good enough for everyone? Why didn't we stop when we developed basic medicine? Why not after modern agriculture alleviated periodic famines?
Unless you can say why certain people deserve the standard of living they have right now, and why they also don't deserve a better standard, points like the one you are talking about are counter-productive, and usually used by people looking to keep more for themselves, and damn everyone else. To accept otherwise would mean accepting that there is no argument for the standard of living in your country to increase either, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't agree with that.
If you are going to talk about how rich even the poorest American currently is so as to intimate that they shouldn't complain about their circumstances you have to answer one question: Why now? Why is this standard of living reasonable, and an improved one not? Why was it fair of them to make it this far, but any better would be unreasonable. The entirety of human history has been one long story of progress, and at every time I am sure there have been people arguing that everyone has it good enough and working to allow more people to have "more" is wrong. Why don't we just stop after the establishment of agriculture? Hey, now people don't have to risk their lives hunting. Why not stop after we create homes and settlements. Now we don't have to live in caves. Isn't that good enough for everyone? Why didn't we stop when we developed basic medicine? Why not after modern agriculture alleviated periodic famines?
Unless you can say why certain people deserve the standard of living they have right now, and why they also don't deserve a better standard, points like the one you are talking about are counter-productive, and usually used by people looking to keep more for themselves, and damn everyone else. To accept otherwise would mean accepting that there is no argument for the standard of living in your country to increase either, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't agree with that.