Kevin Gowen wrote:

> What good is being a millionaire if you drive a 1985 Toyota Tercel
> wagon (bought used) with holes in it that breaks down about once a year, and
> overheats on hot days?

She has enough money, and the confidence that comes with it, to plan to live on
it and if need be, pay for private home care quite possibly for the rest of her
life, which is more than can be said for many who worry about their futures.

Did you wonder the same about Sam Walton, who stood in line in his own chain of
stores to pay for his own purchases, got five dollar haircuts and drove an old
American truck?

> > There are poor people in the US because we allow them to be poor.
>
> How do we "allow" them to be poor?

Because the US government for example, does not look after its citizens like
the Norwegian government.

> There is a free market in this country,

No, there isn't, as millions of people at any one time who want to be employed,
including the highly skilled and educated, are not employed.

> so I suppose the market allows them to be poor, but no more so than it
> allows them to be rich.

Incorrect. People are much more likely to be poor.

> "Allow" implies permission. Yes, you have the
> permission to be as poor or as rich as you like.

No, you cannot become as rich as you like. But you may end up in debt
regardless.

> > Children are not responsible for being poor,
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> > and the handicaps they
> > receive such as poor education,
>
> Which is why poor, minority families are the biggest supporters of school
> vouchers.
>
> > or having to work to support family
>
> I think that work is better for them than education might be in some cases.

It might, in some cases. That is no reason to deny poor people the same
opportunities given to more middle class or rich people, as in varied quality
of education, or having to work instead of doing homework or attending school.
Someone who has to support their family because there is no father at home,
whose education and opportunities may suffer as a result, is quite different
from someone who chooses to work when school is out to buy themselves things to
be cool, whose performance may or may not suffer as a result.

> At least that way, they learn that hard work is the way to success.

If people want to try to be "rich", they should damn well work hard, even
harder than people who somehow ended up rich. People shouldn't have to work so
hard just to make ends meet.

> My
> father never saw the inside of a college and spend his childhood working to
> help support the family, at times even living on his own. I don't know if he
> would have become a millionaire if he hadn't had hat experience. That's
> probably why he had me start working full-time summer jobs from the time I
> was 10.

That's you and your father. That's no reason to deny other people opportunities
such as education, because they're too poor to take advantage of them, or to
promote not pursuing an education. If the rest of society were like your father
or my grandfather, we wouldn't need university or even high school.

> > and themselves instead of making the most of any education they
> > receive, can handicap them for life.
>
> Can, but not necessarily does.

Why deny them the opportunity? Why not offer more job training, scholarships,
and more free schooling such as university, like other countries do?

> >> Why is that funny?
> >
> > Because he thinks having such as a refrigerator and color TV is so
> > great, while making no mention of the fact that people need other,
> > more costly items such as insurance and education to improve their
> > lives.
>
> They could buy those things. They choose not to.

He himself notes how affordable refrigerators (to store food or buy in bulk)
have become. Owning a car does not indicate wealth when it is a POS, or is a
necessity in case of lack of public transportation. My county got public bus in
1992. People have more pressing needs may not be able to spend on insurance or
education which may well be more costly than an affordable (he did not even
stipulate new) refrigerator, TV, or POS car.

> >> Most of those who do not have health insurance are not
> >> living in poverty. They could purchase insurance, but they choose to
> >> spend their money on other things.
> >
> > Like food or rent.
>
> If they have cars, cable tv, and so on, I am pretty sure that they have food
> and rent covered.

And what of the tens of millions of Americans who do not have those things?

> > PS simply being overweight does not suggest good
> > nutrition or quality of life as he would suggest when pointing out
> > how fat some "poor" kids are.
>
> What being fat suggests is that one is not going hungry.

Which still does not suggest good nutrition, health, or lack of poverty. I grew
up with poor people who were not necessarily hungry, but they damned well
needed to take advantage of the public school's free lunch and breakfast
program. Since about third grade through junior high, I worked in the school
cafeteria every morning after my mother dropped me off on her way to work,
until first period, so I knew who they were. There were kids in bad health in
other ways such as parasites or bad teeth, because they were not raised with
good hygiene and did not go to the doctor or dentist. The school had to bring
people in to do fluoride treatments or do examinations for head lice. And they
were not the ones with nice clothes or the families with nice cars.

> > Lower income people and minorities such as blacks, suffer more from
> > crime, than more average or upper class people.
>
> How do they suffer more than so-called "average" people?

Because the leading cause of death for whites and rich people is not being
killed by their own kind, as it was for young black men, for example, nor do
they live in the same environment to live in the same kind of fear, at least
prior to recent acts of terrorism.

> > Even if Bill Gates
> > had to worry about people beating him up or killing him for not
> > joining their gang or wanting his shoes or car, he can afford to have
> > others protect him.
>
> I see. So what?

So simply living in a modern country like the US does not mean one's life is so
great. Poor people who live in slums or worry about street violence or gangs,
probably do not comfort themselves thinking about life in North Korea where
prisoners may eat raw rats out of the toilets.

> > He does not explain why being a millionaire servant for everyone else
> > in the country of the superrich is acceptable,
>
> What's unacceptable about it? It's honest work. It's not illegal.

Do you want to be a millionaire by being a manservant to the rich, or would you
prefer to have the choice to be rich some other way?

> > or how he would enjoy
> > his money with no one else to serve him, or the leisure time to use
> > it. How will he "live quite well" when he is everyone else's servant,
> > probably the only available servant in the whole country?
>
> Now you're fighting his hypothetical. His point was to illustrate that
> income inequality is not de facto bad.

No, if we are only talking about people who live quite well, as he thinks he
would as exclusive millionaire manservant, or who are rich, income inequality
in itself is not bad.

And to that I said, so? I knew that already. I'm talking about poor people.

> >>> when he could hire cheap
> >>> foreign servants for a few bucks a day who wouldn't be expecting
> >>> millions to do housekeeping?)
> >>
> >> Who was expecting millions?
> >
> > He said "soon I could become a millionaire" serving "Bill Gates and
> > the sultan" because they would "surely pay [him] very well".
>
> My question remains.

And so does mine. You could make quite a bit of money as a butler. Maybe become
a millionaire yourself as caddy to a successful pro golfer. You could also
simply marry a wealthy woman.

Or would you prefer to have other choices available to you, to be rich?

> > Perhaps you have read Goldberg's other article: "We should be doing
> > more", because that applies to the US as well, not just suffering
> > foreigners.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/emjx
> >
> > One doesn't need to be a moral relativist, (future) revisionist, or
> > victim of recent terrorism, to see that the US should damned well be
> > helping others such as in North Korea and Africa.
>
> What should the US be doing to help?

In North Korea, the US could enforce prior agreements regarding inspections,
halting nuclear development, and not allowing proliferation of nuclear weapons
as a minimum. And if they want to put any meaning into their bluster against
dictatorship or WMD, they could free the North Korean people from their regime
like was done in Iraq.

> > North Korean
> > defectors, as he says, are testifying before Congress about such as
> > eating rats out of prison toilet holes, or smuggling missile parts,
> > but the US government hasn't been inspired to stop or undo it yet.
>
> What do you want the US to do?

I want the US to mind their own business politically and militarily as it would
save the US a lot of trouble.

But if the US continues to spout off against or rattle their sabers against
countries in oil producing regions, they should damn well apply the same
standard to other regions in the world which may be even more unstable, with
proven, existing stocks of WMD or development programs, or where people suffer
even more than under the Taliban or Baath party, and act accordingly by
toppling the government and freeing the people.