I don't agree, because there certainly are some objective measures of well being, such as access to nutrition, clean drinking water, life expectancy, exposure to violence etc. that hold true across any age in time.
Most of these measures have in general increased in the course of humankind. So a homeless man im 2018 is most likely still better off than a homeless man during the Roman empire.
I understand that human society has progressed over time. That's not what I'm disputing. What I'm pointing out is that it's meaningless to compare current situation to the past. A homeless man in 2019 is better off than everyone in the roman empire - including the emperor and the homeless. So what? How does that help the homeless man in 2019. A slave in the 1800s was wealthier than the anyone in the roman empire. So what? People in 2019 or people in the 1800s weren't living in the roman empire. The north koreans in political camps are wealthier than the emperor of roman empire. So I guess that means everything is great? It's such a deceptive and insincere comparison. People live within their time and their "wealth" should be compared within it. And more importantly, wealth should always be viewed within the context of power because ultimately, that's what wealth is.
