" Material standard of living can be seen in the increase of real incomes that would increase the purchasing power of consumers, and is characterized by the ability to consume goods and services. Non-material standard of living is more qualitative, and refers to the improvements in quality of life and the environment."
So (assuming that's the same definition they used) yeah, I guess the material standard of living is higher. Seems like that's ignoring quite a bit to sound really optimistic though.
I understand they are trying to make a distinction between "relative to others" vs. "by absolute measures," and how we are prone to thinking only in terms of the former, but I'd still argue they are indeed ignoring quite a bit. Using our exponential increases in GDP as a measure of comparison seems a bit irrelevant.
Both of those (material and environmental) fail to encompass fully other important aspects of a monarch's life, like power and sovereignty/independence, things which modern homeless certainly lack.
Well then, to be fair, they are not defining "homeless" as someone without an income. That's just my poor assumption. With that assumption, I have a hard time seeing how material standards do anything for someone without a home or income :)
So (assuming that's the same definition they used) yeah, I guess the material standard of living is higher. Seems like that's ignoring quite a bit to sound really optimistic though.