>>84959
>Does this mean most first-worlders who work and depend on wages for their survival are objectively poorer than African farmers who live off their own land?
Not exactly, and the definition of wealth here is not really correct either, it's like if I were to tell you that the measurement of how healthy you are is how long you're able to live without breathing air, and if one even spends a little bit of time thinking about the plausibility of an African farmer being richer than the average individual of the US, he'd find the idea laughable and for good reason.
See here's the thing: Let's say you work in the Video game industry as a concept artist or perhaps some sort of level designers. Hypothetically within that general market, you'd earn around (give or take) $70,000 a year. That's a pretty good career, good prospects, etc but let's concentrate on the $70,000. So what does one do with $70,000 in the period of a year? As you can imagine, a whole hell of a lot, he might buy a new car in that period, or save up to start buying or leasing a nice house with a pool, etc etc. The point in question is; with $70,000 a year, you can live, by most estimates, a fairly wealthy life. Most people within this wage range, usually do live in pretty nice conditions. They are living wealthily.
Here comes your proposition, let's say you were to quit your comfy concept artist job for whatever reason and plan to stay out of the job market for as long as you humanely can.
Awesome! Now you're on this sabbatical to see how long you can stay afloat and just plain relax. Here's the thing: How do you want to live? You see, now you don't actually have a steady flow of income but this is assuming that you've saved a fairly good amount of money. Now you might have to downsize in terms of your home in order to afford everything else you want, you might have to sell the car (but that's if you can't afford the car insurance), in simple terms: If you plan to stay jobless long, you're going to have to forgo a lot of the things that you enjoyed while you had a job.
That African farmer must be richer than you then, right? Wrong. The African farmer objectively lives in absolute shit, you'll notice he does not have any of the things you have with your job but you'll also notice that he's not exactly without a 'job' either, as you just stated, he's a farmer. The problem for him of course, is that he doesn't actually provide that much value to others, he simply lives by whatever it is he can grow and maintain (and that's IF he can maintain it, African farmers by large are not exactly good at what they do), as such he doesn't really obtain a lot of wealth. Put simply, if you wish to gain wealth within the market, you must ultimately provide something of value to your peers in order to gain these things. If you were to stop providing goods, services, investments, etc then ultimately the general population will have no reason to pay you any money at all (unless you decide to live on charity, which is a plausibility but that's not exactly a wealthy life now is it?).
Similarly, the African farmer doesn't really provide a lot of services and as such doesn't actually have as much wealth as you do. Sure he's able to live for as long as he's able to farm for himself, but that's not exactly much of a living as you can imagine. Put simply, the keeping of one's wealth (in general) requires maintenance of market activity on some level, or at the very least, a good amount of savings.
tl;dr: No the nigger isn't wealthier than you are, he's able to maintain this living because it's not really much of a living to begin with. A good wealthy living on the other hand inevitably requires the actual provision of market services in order to keep gaining wealth.
>pic unrelated