knoxsouthy wrote:
In fact it can be argued that those who have through inaction forced the govn to give them all these luxuries are more intelligent than those who have earned it.
Ok, I can see you're struggling with this one, so let me hold your hand.
Everything is relative. This is the starting point of pretty much everything. "Poverty" in the US is measured by US standards. Same in other countries. Now, in order to be in the "middle-class", you can't be "poor" relatively.
By definition. If you were poor, you'be in the "lower-class".
In "poor" countries, it means that the "lower-class" is huge, "the middle-class" small, and the "upper-class" miniuscule. Those that are in the "upper" section of the "middle-class" in most countries around the world live in relative luxury. Once again, by definition. They drive nice cars, and have cable TV. They travel abroad. They go shopping at the mall, and buy luxuries. They are well-off in terms of
purchasing power.
You're trying to compare that class of people to "poor" people in the US, who have virtually 0 purchasing power. If you live in a trailer park and are unemployed in the US, you won't have nearly the same purchasing power as, say, a regional manager of Coca-Cola in Argentina.