>

Why should we be doing average wealth by location instead of absolute wealth? I'm not saying that your position in your home country's average wealth ladder is more important, but your absolute wealth and resources. 
And I am well aware that both of these metrics interact and are important, but that's not an argument for either imo.
/u/Buffyfanatic1 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I have no memory of the city I was born in, and no connection to it. It was a place my parents lived for less than two years. After we moved away, we never returned and never had contact with anyone there. I can't think of a single way that place has had any importance on my life.
I think your view is about where you grew up, or where your family is from. Not necessarily where you were born. >

!delta I can definitely understand that. I was coming from an angle of "you're born and raised there so this is who 80% you will become" not "you're born there and no matter where you're raised you'll always be from there" >

Big difference between where you’re born and where you’re raised as far as this argument goes. >

Don't you contradict that right in your post with the example of your husband? He was born one place, then raised another, and the place he was raised had a much bigger impact on him. What makes the literal place of your birth more important than where you grow up? >

Yeah OP needs to change this to “where you were raised” >

Disagree - when you’re born is the most important thing to happen to you above all else.
Assuming reincarnation is incorrect, we only have one life on earth before we die. The era you’re born into will determine literally everything about you, your probable life trajectory, etc. 
For example, I was born in the US. If I was born exactly 40 years earlier with the same date of birth, I would have been drafted into the Vietnam War. Being born into the objectively richest country in the world in the mid-20th century would have been a wildly different experience for me compared to being born in the richest country in the world in the late 20th century all because I was born at the right time. 
The same thing applies across the world across every era. If you were born and died during the Black Plague, your life was short, objectively awful, etc. If you were born in Ireland since the Celtic Tiger compared to most of its history, your chances for a comfortable and high-quality life are never higher than at any point in Irish history. If you were born in Palestine in 1923 vs 2023, your experience would be VERY different and likely for the worse.
Even excluding geography, if you were born in a world where insulin, the smallpox vaccine, etc. weren’t a thing, you probably died young all because of the era in which you were born. Through no fault of your own, you died in a wealthy or poor country. >

!delta that is very true. The time period you're born into determines everything even before where you're born or your sex or your race. If you're born in a shithole time period in a shithole country you're gonna have a bad time irrelevant of everything else. I 100% agree with that. Thank you >

Cool, my first delta! Thank you 😄 >

Congrats, great response. >

How are you determining importance? I'm not going to change your mind in regards to it being important. I'd simply argue that family wealth is more important than where you were born. >

I feel like where you were born is more important than family wealth. As people who are rich in other countries spend their money in different ways. Yes, all rich people are rich, but if you take a rich guy from Japan and compare how he spends his money to let's say a rich person in a small African country it would be vastly different. Why? That's where they were born so their money values come with the culture that they were raised in. >

Okay, so lets take an example here. We have an ultra-wealthy kid born in Nebraska as our base example, random state chosen. Now, compare them to a poor kid born in Nebraska, and an ultra-wealthy kid born in California. Which of these other kids would the Wealthy Nebraskan be more similar to? Both of the Wealthy kids will go to private school, live in a mansion or expensive suburbs, have a ton of toys and resources, fly on private jets, have nannies and butlers and all the other privileges that come with tons of money. Meanwhile, both kids in Nebraska will absorb something of that culture for sure, but the ways they interact with that place will be totally different. The poor kid will likely live in a city, go to poor public schools, meet totally different people and interact with totally different social circles/infrastructure, have to make their own way and just generally have a completely different life to the wealthy kid. 
To me it is pretty clear that both wealthy kids will have a much more similar life than the two Nebraska kids. >

You’ve chosen the most extreme possible differential from the mean for wealth (kids-private-jet-level wealthy, separated from the mean by as many standard deviations as there could possibly be), and almost no differential at all in the location axis (two states from the same already-unbelievably-wealthy-by-historical-standards country).
Try your comparison again using a top-25%-er from California with a top-25%-er from Sudan and you’ll understand the parent poster’s point better, I think.