Not disagreeing with your overall point, but amount of money (based on currency exchange rates) is a bad way to compare poverty levels across different areas. It doesn't take into account cost of living which makes a huge difference.
Notice that most of this guy's problems come from rent. Getting decent housing is expensive, having a long commute is a byproduct of high rent, etc. That's caused by rampant NIMBYism preventing the construction of new housing, and not anything related to American minimum wage. If you increased the minimum wage 200% rent would also increase 200% because housing is inelastic. This exact trend has played out in the SFBA, Seattle, and many other west coast cities over the last decade. You can't legislate your way out of supply and demand.
Except that cost of living is also pretty high in Indian metros (especially Delhi). This is why most of the residents live in slums: they can't afford permanent/legal housing. From the article:
> But nearly half of the city’s population lives in slums without basic services and facilities like drinking water, garbage disposal or a proper drainage system.
> So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an average afternoon
You are making a comparison between two sums of money (the amount middle class people spend in an afternoon, and the amount poor people make in a month).
Obviously I misinterpreted who the middle class people were, but I doubt I'm the only one. I thought you meant middle class Westerners.
i am still confused why that makes a difference. to me the comment only makes sense if the middle class in india is more affluent than the middle class in the US.
