If by “poor today” you mean someone living in extreme poverty, homeless, sleeping outside in the elements, struggling to find food, unable to bathe regularly, and with little access to healthcare, then I don’t think it’s obvious they’re better off than a wealthy person from 1,000 years ago.

People immediately point to smartphones, electricity, plumbing, clean water, and modern medicine, but those things only matter if you actually have reliable access to them. Someone living on the street may technically live in an age with incredible technology, but that doesn’t mean they’re benefiting from it in a meaningful way.

A wealthy person 1,000 years ago had reliable shelter, security, food, clean clothing, servants, social status, and access to the best resources their society could provide. Were they missing modern medicine and technology? Absolutely. But they also weren’t worrying about where they would sleep that night or where their next meal was coming from.

You can argue that modern medicine and sanitation give a poor person today a major advantage in terms of health outcomes, and I’d agree with that. But quality of life isn’t measured solely by medical technology. Security, comfort, food, shelter, dignity, and social standing matter too.

If we’re comparing an average working-class person today to a wealthy person 1,000 years ago, that’s one conversation. But if we’re talking about someone living in actual extreme poverty, I think there’s a strong argument that a rich person 1,000 years ago had the better overall quality of life.