ROB wrote:Let me put it another way Penta.
Of the last 20 people to dine at your house, did the majority have more in common with the 30k independent wealth guy, or the 100k bling guy?
That's an interesting exercise. And the answer is none of them had anything much in common with either. I could only remember the last 18 who've eaten or stayed here: a librarian, a primary school teacher, a journalist, someone who runs a swimming club, a sail-maker, a watch-repairer and jeweller, a film producer, a doctor, another freelance book editor, a former primary teacher who runs a junk stall, five students, a pizza-delivery boy, a junior bank employee and my mother-in-law. No independent wealth there, or bling: ordinary people with ordinary jobs or small businesses. 4 French, 3 Chilean, 1 Argentinean, 1 Spanish and 9 British. Oh, yes: now I remember 4 more, who came for drinks and tapas, which might count: the head of BBC Radio (since retired), her husband (who according to her Wiki page was former head of planning for the NHS: there's a job not to hanker after), the head of a film and TV production company, and the former senior director or producer of Granada TV's World in Action: I don't know how they fit - all very well off now, I assume and the 2 men working in the private sector now, but previously public service types all of them. The film/TV man and his wife both started poor, but are getting very rich, and he's tight as a clam's arse, as it happens - but as he says himself: Scottish and Jewish, what do you expect? The radio/NHS couple might have had some inherited wealth, I don't know: distinguished Jewish immigrant family from Belarus; Fettes and Oxford. I can't see what that list tells you, except that nearly all our friends and acquaintances have worked hard and made their own way, sometimes very successfully, sometimes with no interest in material success.
And while I can't really be bothered looking up stuff at you behest (fallen into that trap before and it's usually simply dismissed or ignored therefore a waste of time on my part), I do recall you being fairly critical of US giving in past conversations. The point of the boat comment was to point out hypocrisy. (Is this the second or third time I have repeated the reason?).
Yes, but where exactly is the hypocrisy? I still think you're barking up the wrong tree: I've criticised US state international aid (legitimately, since the richest of the OECD countries usually comes bottom or next to bottom of the list); I don't think I've ever criticised levels of personal donation - why would I? Your charge of hypocrisy on the grounds that I allow Mr Penta to keep his precious boat and don't insist he sell it to feed the poor only stands if I accuse others of not selling their possessions to feed the poor, which I have certainly never done. If you were as decent and honourable in discussion as you like to make out you are, you need to withdraw the charge, which is clearly invalid. (Not that I'm never hypocritical, but that's no evidence for it.)
As for back in your day, everyone knew about money, well the evidence doesn't add up. If the lowliest janitor puts away 10% of his earnings (another golden money rule) he will probably die a millionaire. Pretty sure there wasn't a surge in Janatorial millionaires in the 60s and 70s. The working poor have always been the working poor.
"Back in my day" caretakers or cleaners (we don't have janitors) didn't earn anything like enough to put away 10% of their earnings: and yes, would have stayed part of the working poor.