> Wealth is not the number of pieces of green paper in your pocket. It's the things you have and what you can do with those things.
While wealth can also be your loved ones, your personal relationships, your experience and memories, the nature and culture of the land etc.
As long as we are talking about economics and standards of living this should be defined in a way for which statistically significant numbers can be obtained e.g. the relative purchasing power, or relative employable labor relative to a time. (note that none of these are provided.)
Yes, you couldn't 'Skype' in 1916 but I also can't employ Leonardo to draw paintings for a modestly large income as I could in the 16th century. You can't pull historical details out of their centuries and call that a worthwhile comparison because there is no equivalent.
A subjective "it's the worst poverty because I'd have to use a rotary phone in 1916" can be your opinion sure, as is "it's poverty to lose my experiences and the significant people in my life to be rich in 1916" - but neither of those do anything to support the title which states:
> Most Ordinary Americans in 2016 Are Richer Than Was John D. Rockefeller in 1916
Since the use of the generic 'most ordinary Americans' indeed requires the use a broadly applicable and numerically supportable definition of wealth (if one is to make the argument) rather than a personal one.
I would have no objections if the title was "I an ordinary American, am richer today than John D. Rockefeller was in 1916" -- but that's clearly not what it says.