In example #1, what you are really saying is that one has much more opportunity and a better life in the US than in Ngozi. No argument but what if contestant #2 was in US and in the same position as the US citizen but with a net worth of 25 cents, rather than -33,000? I think it’s safe to say #2 would win. Also, don’t underestimate how hard it is to get out of a 33,000 debt–and that’s before any positive real net worth can be realized.

In example two, once again the loser lives in a state of desperation–much like a rich mobster with a contract on his head. What if constant #2 had similar problems for whatever reason? Their net worths hardly matter in the comparison although I would argue that with 85M, I’d get the hell out of there and live comfortably somewhere else with any family I could manage to smuggle out with me. In this respect, 85M is much better than 520K.

You are conflating many different factors to determine quality of life, which cannot easily be measured. You also fail to take into account earning potential. For example, when the Clintons took office, they were carpetbaggers without a home or much (if any net worth) but I hardly felt sorry for them. A former president almost always gets lucrative offers up the yin yang, so the prospect of the Clinton family remaining poor did not seem likely. In such a case, I’d take future income potential over most any current net worth. Granted, it is unique case though.