I’m still not sure I will be able to retire at all, never mind “and then some”, off of even twice a median income.

In the past seven years since I last went flat broke, I have saved up about two years worth of my current living expenses. At that rate, if nothing catastrophic ruins my life again, and I keep living how I live now in this tiny trailer, by myself, never getting married, then I could retire at 65 with about ten years expenses saved up. But I hope to live past 75, so...

(This is reinforcing your point, not arguing against it).

I'm not sure you have a good grasp on how long money will stretch in this economy...

I'm entirely aware. I'm just a single guy with no kids in a medium cost of living area. I'm entirely familiar with my monthly expenses. Obviously if you're a single mom with 3-4 kids it's a completely different ball game. Children can absolutely drive someone into poverty; they're massively expensive.

I’m still not sure I will be able to retire at all, never mind “and then some”, off of even twice a median income.

(This is reinforcing your point, not arguing against it). — Pfhorrest

Well, I was trying to use you as a rare example of someone who could comfortably retire off of a normal income, so I appreciate your clarification that this is still going to be a challenge (and agree that makes my point stronger). I have actually been amazed reading your financial situation in other threads. I am confident that less than 10% of people in this country are anywhere near as a financially careful. I thought I kept my spending low, but you showed me it could be lower (although I haven't found a deal on rent yet). And this all leads to me being rather perplexed when someone asks "why don't people just save up for a comfortable retirement?"

Thanks, I took that as complimentary. And don’t fault yourself for not finding a cheap deal in rent yet: by definition they are hard to come by, and if they weren’t there wouldn’t be a problem. I’ve been very lucky to have found the deals I have in my life, which is why I’ve put up with so much intolerable shit to keep them.

I would estimate that no more than 40% of Americans retire with "and then some". What do you think the percentage is?

Have they been paying into social security (I hope so). Have they been paying into a 401k? How about a roth ira? I don't have statistics on this at the moment. If someone retires with 0 in savings that's not the fault of capitalism or the evil system (there are some rare possible exceptions....)

Lets be very clear what I'm saying here: I am not saying that everything is hunky dory and that life is totally fair. This isn't an argument about capitalism, all I am saying is that financial responsibility is your responsibility first and foremost. If you don't take ownership of it, it will take ownership of you.

There are very few extremely financially responsible people out there like @Pfhorrest. (someone who can retire and then some off of a median income). If most people are NOT financially responsible it seems unfair (and wrong?) to suggest that everyone should be.

I've already had a talk like this with Pfhorrest and I refuse to hold him up as a perfect example of personal fiscal responsibility. I've already had this discussion with him and I don't feel like rehashing it. He's doing somethings fine but he can certainly improve.

Everyone should absolutely be financially responsible just like everyone shouldn't drink and drive... this holds true even if some people have a really hard time with it. Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school. They only exception would be if you're extremely wealthy.

If someone retires with 0 in savings that's not the fault of capitalism or the evil system — BitconnectCarlos

It totally is if they can’t find a high enough income or low enough living expenses to live more than check to check. Which apparently most Americans can’t. And the power to determine the pay and rent and interest that affects that situation is far more in the hands of the wealth people who own the businesses and housing and money than the poor people who need to work at and live in and borrow them.

I have little sympathy for people who can see a problem coming, oh, 40-50 years in the future and not do anything about it. If you don't take care of your life that's not my problem. Get a side hustle. Get a better job. Train as a welder or an electrician. Move to a cheaper area. It's not someone's fault for being into poverty, but it is their fault if they die poor. Plenty of people don't care to try to advance. Not my problem.

It's not someone's fault for being [born] into poverty, but it is their fault if they die poor. — BitconnectCarlos

And the fact that the greatest predictor of a child’s future wealth is the wealth of their parents doesn’t contradict that at all?

I took that as complimentary. — Pfhorrest

Good. I certainly meant to portray your position as admirable.

And the power to determine the pay and rent and interest that affects that situation is far more in the hands of the wealth people who own the businesses and housing and money than the poor people who need to work at and live in and borrow them. — Pfhorrest

Indeed. I am in Orange County. The NIMBYism is rampant.

And the fact that the greatest predictor of a child’s future wealth is the wealth of their parents doesn’t contradict that at all?

Prediction isn't fate, and you're ultimately responsible for yourself. I hate to say this, but if all else fails just join the military (preferably Air Force). I work with a ton of people from poor backgrounds who thanks to their job will be middle class.

EDIT: I should also mention that there is no risk of dying in most Air Force jobs these days. My field doesn't even get deployed.

Everyone should absolutely be financially responsible just like everyone shouldn't drink and drive... this holds true even if some people have a really hard time with it. Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school. They only exception would be if you're extremely wealthy. — BitconnectCarlos

This is very interesting... seems a bit too shallow though. There's too much being left out of the discussion here. Real things. Everyday circumstances. Real life for poor people.

One cannot learn about X unless X is a part of one's life. I think that you grossly underestimate the sheer differences in everyday thought of those who've been born into struggle, and those who've not.

What's familiar comes first. Children learn what they live... that's the reality. If one is struggling on paper even to pay bills and provide food for the family despite working full time or several part time jobs(as is more common nowadays), then they may face a difficult choice between food and bills. These people do not have the luxury of even considering a different lifestyle...

I would bet the farm that wealthy people spend far far more money on frivolous items than poor people do. Fiscal responsibility you say???

:brow:

A five thousand dollar mistake can ruin a poor up-and-coming entrepreneur. Not so much a rich one. All else being equal.

I am saying is that financial responsibility is your responsibility first and foremost. — BitconnectCarlos

And THE FACT that MOST people are NOT financially responsible doesn't affect that opinion at all?

You seem to support Social Security, which exists exactly because the government realized that people would NOT be financially responsible unless they are forced.

I've already had a talk like this with Pfhorrest and I refuse to hold him up as a perfect example of personal fiscal responsibility. — BitconnectCarlos

It is not about him being a perfect example. It is about the fact that he is FAR more responsible than most.

Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school. — BitconnectCarlos

Uh, they would never teach that in school because it would slow the economy as people buy less stuff...right?

Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school.
— BitconnectCarlos

Uh, they would never teach that in school because it would slow the economy as people buy less stuff...right? — ZhouBoTong

Indeed. That's quite true, and it did not even cross my mind upon reading it...

I'm reminded of what Bush Jr. said immediately after 9/11. Spend... spend... spend... like nothing happened.

One cannot learn about X unless X is a part of one's life. I think that you grossly underestimate the sheer differences in everyday thought of those who've been born into struggle, and those who've not.

Do poor people have access to the internet? Can they watch Dave Ramsey? Is there a library near them? I don't know, but given economics is invariably thread into life and always a factor you'd think people would be a bit more interested in it. I just don't buy the argument that poor people can't possibly educate themselves on fiscal responsibility. I've seen plenty of them do it. I work with plenty of them.

I would bet the farm that wealthy people spend far far more money on frivolous items than poor people do. Fiscal responsibility you say???

Yes, because they can actually afford to and it's just not a problem for them. Rich people have other problems (I'd be happy to discuss these; the rich still have things that can ruin them.) Fiscal responsibility can still be a problem for rich people if they overspend, they would just have to overspend on big ticket items. Fiscal responsibility when it comes to everyday items (coffee, groceries, etc.) is a much more relevant issue for the poor or middle class.

And THE FACT that MOST people are NOT financially responsible doesn't affect that opinion at all?

Not at all. It would be like if drunk driving rates were to skyrocket in this country and you saw me getting into my car drunk; could I just tell you: "well MOST people drive drunk, it's fine!"

You can literally educate yourself for free on this topic. There's a billion resources and it's vastly relevant to your life if you're not already rich and you're concerned about your financial well-being.

You seem to support Social Security, which exists exactly because the government realized that people would NOT be financially responsible unless they are forced.

As a rule I don't really believe in paternalism and I feel that money could be better invested elsewhere. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about social security though. You will (hopefully) be getting paid it out though.

It is not about him being a perfect example. It is about the fact that he is FAR more responsible than most.

I honestly don't even know about this. I've already had this discussion with him and given him several suggestions. I gave him a podcast to listen to about the topic of real estate investment and he refused to listen to it. I don't know how his financial responsibility compares to the rest of the country. He's doing somethings right and somethings he could be doing better.

Uh, they would never teach that in school because it would slow the economy as people buy less stuff...right?

Yeah, maybe, I don't know. I don't know why schools don't teach certain subjects, but regardless its still something you should be familiar with.

Carlos, the thing that you really seem to miss here, which should really be obvious because it's a basic tenet of mainstream capitalist economics that every business owner or manager has to understand just to continue operating:

-lacking wealth increases expenses
(you have to service debts on the borrowing you have to do to continue operating)
- having wealth increases revenues
(you receive returns on the investments you can put that wealth into).

Individual people and families are no different in that respect. Poverty costs you money on an ongoing basis. Wealth gains you money on an ongoing basis.

So those who start our poor have to struggle all the harder just to stay where they are wealth-wise, while those who start out richer can afford to fuck up constantly and still stay where they are wealth-wise.

Two people who are equally fiscally responsible, but differ drastically in wealth, will see drastically different outcomes, because the poorer one gets an automatic negative on their balance sheet just for being poor, and the richer one gets an automatic positive just for being rich.

And as the gap between the rich and poor increases, fewer and fewer people are capable of performing at the requisite levels of fiscal responsibility necessary to overcome their wealth disadvantage, and fewer and fewer people get the luxury of being able to make reasonable mistakes in the course of their life and still expect to get to keep living it with reasonable human dignity.

All else being equal, people should be responsible for themselves, sure. But the problem that all else is not equal. It's an enormous, nigh-impossible uphill battle to get from the poverty most people are born into up to a truly middle class position (where returns on investment cancel out servicing debts, so your changes in wealth are truly down to your own actions), and then an increasingly downhill ride to work from that position up to staggering wealth.

Individual people and families are no different in that respect. Poverty costs you money on an ongoing basis. Wealth gains you money on an ongoing basis.

Poverty is expensive; I get that. I get that there are added costs there. You'll never find me defending modern banking practices which charge overdraft fees which disproportionately target the poor. Yet, you still see plenty of people overcome poverty. I know you saw my last post.

Wealth does not automatically generate more wealth though and I don't know where this idea comes from. It certainly can sometimes, but it's not automatic. Who do you think got hit the hardest these past few days with the stock market? The poor don't really have money in stocks, the rich got soaked with the recent stock market crash. Certainly if we're talking investment we're talking risk. If we're talking business we're also talking a huge amount of risk: most start ups fail. It's really no easy task to do even if you have decent starting capital. I think something like 90% of start ups fail within the first few years.

I'm much more comfortable talking about investment here because it's something I do regularly and read up about. I guarantee you that wealth invested does not automatically mean more wealth. The more risk you're willing to take on the higher the prospective returns.

One thing you consistently have a hard time grasping is risk and you speak in huge generalities (as is characteristic of you) when you just say that wealth generates more wealth. It might generate you more wealth; it can also crash and you can lose money like you never thought was possible.

It's an enormous, nigh-impossible uphill battle to get from the poverty most people are born into up to a truly middle class position (where returns on investment cancel out servicing debts, so your changes in wealth are truly down to your own actions)

You can literally join the military from a poor family and become middle class. By middle class I am going by income levels and lifestyle (home ownership is high among members of the armed forces), which is how middle class is generally defined.

I'm much more comfortable talking about investment here because it's something I do regularly and read up about. I guarantee you that wealth invested does not automatically mean more wealth. The more risk you're willing to take on the higher the prospective returns. — BitconnectCarlos

The more wealth you have, the more risk you can afford to take.

If there is some gamble you can take where for 49% of the time you lose everything and 51% of the time you win a million times what you put in, and you've got enough cash to take that bet over and over again thousands of times, losing as much as you need to to get that big win, then you're virtually guaranteed to come out ahead. But if you can only afford to lose once and then you don't have anything to gamble with at all anymore, that's an awful bet.

A huge chunk of my net worth is in stocks. I lost thousands of dollars overnight, several days in a row, this week. And I don't care, because I don't need that money immediately, I can afford to wait for the market to recover, and the drop wasn't even enough to undo the unearned gains I've made from having that money invested for just a few years now. I guarantee you that billionaires are even less worried about it than I am. While someone who really needed that money soon... probably shouldn't have had it somewhere risky like stocks, and so wouldn't have been making those kinds of returns on it if they were doing the smart thing and not risking it, and would have just lost something they can't afford to lose if they had been desperate and reckless enough to risk it anyway.

The more wealth you have, the more risk you can afford to take.

Thank you, now you're speaking my language. I agree!

If there is some gamble you can take where for 49% of the time you lose everything and 51% of the time you win a million times what you put in, and you've got enough cash to take that bet over and over again thousands of times, losing as much as you need to to get that big win, then you're virtually guaranteed to come out ahead. But if you can only afford to lose once and then you don't have anything to gamble with at all anymore, that's an awful bet.

This bet is insanely good. In fact, you could be losing 99% of the time and winning 1% but its still a bet you should absolutely be taking if that pay out is 1,000,000x. That said if there was that 99% chance of ruin you should not be throwing your entire portfolio at it whether that portfolio is large or small.

The mistake you're making here is that you're seemingly supposing that the poor (or middle class person, maybe?) must throw their entire portfolio at this investment. If the poor person only had 1k to invest and if they lose they go broke, they could only allocate, say, 5% or 10% of their portfolio to riskier investments which promise higher rewards. You don't need to buy a whole stock or a whole bitcoin.

1,000,000x returns are kind of unheard of though.... for the sake of discussion lets just say a riskier investment could return 10x or 100x and have a high risk of ruin. For such investments whether you're dealing with a $100 portfolio or a $10,000,000 portfolio you should generally only allocate a smaller % of your total portfolio.

tl;dr: You're making it sound like we're at a roulette table where the table minimum is like $10k when this is not the case.

A huge chunk of my net worth is in stocks. I lost thousands of dollars overnight, several days in a row, this week. And I don't care, because I don't need that money immediately, I can afford to wait for the market to recover, and the drop wasn't even enough to undo the unearned gains I've made from having that money invested for just a few years now.

That's a good mentality.

While someone who really needed that money soon... probably shouldn't have had it somewhere risky like stocks, and so wouldn't have been making those kinds of returns on it if they were doing the smart thing and not risking it, and would have just lost something they can't afford to lose if they had been desperate and reckless enough to risk it anyway.

Yes, the poor are generally not able to take advantage of the stock market which is a shame even if it does sometimes lose money. This is where some like Dave Ramsey or a financial advisor would come in and take a good hard look at what this person is doing and what their life circumstances are and how these can be improved. It is unfortunate though that those without money cannot take advantage of the market. There's a billion questions I could ask about this though: Is this person working? Are they addicted to drugs? Are they financially irresponsible? What kind of lifestyle choices have they made that have got them here? Every situation is unique. Maybe they're in the process of training or schooling for a better job. Nobody feels bad for med students who will be graduating soon.

Thank you, now you're speaking my language. I agree! — BitconnectCarlos

Okay great. And you said earlier that more risk comes with greater rewards. Combine those two things then: the more wealth you have, the more risk you can afford to take, and so the greater rewards you can reap. Mentioning that risk is a factor in the middle there doesn't change the basic connection of more wealth to greater rewards... and less wealth to greater costs, conversely. Which was my original point. The involvement of risk doesn't negate any of that.

Prediction isn't fate, and you're ultimately responsible for yourself. I hate to say this, but if all else fails just join the military (preferably Air Force). I work with a ton of people from poor backgrounds who thanks to their job will be middle class. — BitconnectCarlos

You do know that you are here praising the virtues of the government as an employer, the role of the public sector.

And this is a very American thing: that the armed forces gives these kinds of opportunities, gives the ability to study etc. isn't hardly mentioned as an example of that evil socialism/statism/welfare state. Anarcho-libertarians often ridicule government employees, but very seldom do they ridicule the men and women in uniform. The reason is obvious.

Perhaps the way it goes is that an unabashed leftie like Bernie Sanders isn't the correct messenger for these kinds of issues. Someone like Eisenhower would be.

One cannot learn about X unless X is a part of one's life. I think that you grossly underestimate the sheer differences in everyday thought of those who've been born into struggle, and those who've not.

Do poor people have access to the internet? — BitconnectCarlos

Irrelevant.

Do you have access to microbes? Then why haven't you discovered all the possible medicinal uses involving them?

As if having access to the internet is adequate and/or sufficient enough all by itself for changing one's initial worldview in such permanent a way that they not only know how to dig themselves out of the unfortunate circumstances that they've found themselves in, but that they also have the confidence/willpower to do it.

You seem to be neglecting the most important elements necessary for an individual and/or family, and/or community of individuals to get themselves out of the situation that they find themselves in.

Ridiculous.

Is it possible to go from poor to rich just the way things are now?

Sure, but those are the exceptions and - while they are improvements to days long gone - they remain just the beginning of lasting changes that are needed. The changes that transcend the generations... a spanning across multiple generations. And you actually suggested access to the internet?

Access to the internet? Really?

:roll:

As if further re-enforcing one's pre-existing thought and belief is the fix?

The magical cure of, by, and for itself.

Can they watch Dave Ramsey? Is there a library near them? — BitconnectCarlos

The internet, Dave Ramsey, and public libraries as a miracle blend...

The ready made smoothie of economic information. Don't miss out! Get yours while you still can. Supplies are limited.

The simple path out of the poor house. More of what the poor already have. Hmmm...

When exactly is that supposed to begin working, and perhaps more importantly, when can we realistically expect to see the resulting improvements? I mean, it has yet to have happened, despite all of those things already being readily available to many if not most.

Must take more than just your magical elixir: The guarantee that sounds good to all who do not understand.

As if those three questions lead to all the answers of how to correct the tremendous wealth gap, and in doing so help those who find themselves at a significant disadvantage through no fault of their own to be able to take the time to digest all of the information necessary in order to have both, the knowledge and the ability to implement that knowledge. In addition, let us not forget, unless one get's very lucky, they must also possess and/or cultivate the inner confidence required for not giving up, the steel necessary for marching onward, the courage to continue on pulling one up by one's own bootstraps despite knowing and/or believing that one will fail in all sorts of ways...

Along with the courage to take new unfamiliar courses comes the unexpected. Poor people do not have mommy and daddy to catch them when they fall... fiscally speaking that is. Poor people do not have what it takes. No one is poor by voluntary choice alone.

Look... :smirk:

The economic smoothie... the magical blend... that you've offered here quite simply cannot fix what needs fixed in the extremely real and ongoing everyday plight of poor people.

The first step is to identify the problem(s). They are multiple. The second step is to identify the source of the problem. The third is to collaborate in order to fix the problem, which includes binding the hands(so to speak) of everyone who played an active role in crafting, implementing, and/or subsequently benefitting from pieces of legislation that were directly responsible for the financial collapse of the world.

As if talking about one's economic savvy is all that goes into understanding how we've gotten to the place where we are, which is soo far from where we ought be as a representative republic with democratic traditions.

I don't know, but given economics is invariably thread into life and always a factor you'd think people would be a bit more interested in it.

Interested in what...

:brow:

Your magical elixir that amounts to nothing more than access to information?


Either you fail to recognize the stark differences between the real life everyday socio-economic circumstances of poor people as compared to rich people , or you fail to properly consider the inevitable effects/affects thereof... all of which are entirely out of the control of hypothetical individual under our considerations.

You clearly do not recognize the latter, otherwise you'd fucking know better than to blame poor discouraged downtrodden people for being poor discourages downtrodden people.

I just don't buy the argument that poor people can't possibly educate themselves on fiscal responsibility. I've seen plenty of them do it. I work with plenty of them. — BitconnectCarlos

It's good that you choose to not 'buy that argument', for it's a non-sequitur, and thus not one that I'm offering. It most certainly does not follow from the position I do argue from and/or for.

Something to think about... carefully...

What counts as being fiscally responsible depends entirely upon individual particular circumstances.You're mistakenly presupposing that there are no poor people who qualify as being financially responsible.

Let me ask you a direct and very pointed question...

How many financial mistakes can an individual make and still count as being fiscally responsible?

Easy to cast aspersions about the poor when one speaks from the pedestal of privilege... complete ignorance of what that's like.

How well do really poor people fair when it comes to... I don't know... let's say intellectual property?

You do realize, don't you, that a multimillion dollar idea often does not legally belong to the person who came up with it as a result of the current US labor laws? I think, that there are two exceptions to that. There were only two states the last time I checked, but that's been some time ago.

The point being whether the inventor actually receives substantial financial reward is at the sole discretion of the corporation and/or company they are gainfully employed by.

Basic employment agreements. Standard. Par for the course. In order to even be able to take a job, one must sign away their own intellectual property rights.

Now these cases are not the norm... but, they do arise. Each case is one less person digging themselves out of the hole, despite the fact that they've done nothing wrong. That window is legally nailed shut by a series of unjust precedents. In the rare event that these things happen, there is no legal recourse for the inventor... there very well ought be.

That's a person chip on the shoulder...

:smirk:

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but those opportunities have been systemically reduced for all the less fortunate people.

And don't give me the excuse of robotic technology replacing human workers. Those jobs create others and do not replace all humans. Technology is not necessarily at odds with everyday American in the ways that directly concern me.

America is ripe for investment in everyday Americans... the building trades and manufacturing sectors are in dire need of American government who places everyday Americans... ahem workers... ahead of corporate interests... ahem... shareholder profits.

There is no excuse for dismantling the entire blue collar sector. The results have been disastrous.

There are a swathe of Americans who would directly benefit from concerted efforts to re-invest in America by virtue of re-investing in everyday Americans. Not to mention the fact that the current state of American infrastructure is downright dangerous in some ways. Re-invest in everyday average Americans.

Go green!

Buy shit that lasts.

You do know that you are here praising the virtues of the government as an employer, the role of the public sector.

Yes, I've been employed by them for over 5 years now. I work alongside plenty of Americans who come from pretty considerable poverty. You'll never see me advocating America dismantle its state or its military.

There are costs though. There's a loss of freedom. You may find yourself dependent on the system and the paycheck (but not necessarily so, I have seen financially responsible people avoid this.) Some of the medical care is suspect. I'm 100% transparent about my experience in the military.

Someone's first responsibility to themselves. I'll 100% stand by someone joining the military to get out of poverty.

Okay great. And you said earlier that more risk comes with greater rewards. Combine those two things then: the more wealth you have, the more risk you can afford to take, and so the greater rewards you can reap. Mentioning that risk is a factor in the middle there doesn't change the basic connection of more wealth to greater rewards... and less wealth to greater costs, conversely. Which was my original point. The involvement of risk doesn't negate any of that.

you can associate greater wealth with greater numerical gains just like you can associate greater wealth with greater numerical loss. it's two sides of the same coin and to ignore one side isn't right. at the end of the day though it's up to the portfolio owner how much risk they're is prepared to take on. i know plenty of well off people who take very little risk.

i don't necessarily associate less wealth to greater costs, but i do acknowledge that poverty has costs. if by costs you mean investment losses this is definitely not the case.

I'm entirely aware. I'm just a single guy with no kids in a medium cost of living area. I'm entirely familiar with my monthly expenses. Obviously if you're a single mom with 3-4 kids it's a completely different ball game. Children can absolutely drive someone into poverty; they're massively expensive. — BitconnectCarlos

First of all, your math still wouldn't add up to less than millions for the security you're talking about.

But that aside, it's striking to me that your idea of "freedom" comes with such a narrow view of how one ought to live. If your version of freedom is that one has to do shape one's life in this predetermined way, make all these specific lifestyle choices, and invest money such and such particulars... That doesn't sound much like freedom to me. In fact, it sounds to me like even the people living in the DDR had more freedom than you do.

You might talk about how sure, one can take other risks, yada yada, but then you fall back on the "right" choices people have to make in order to survive in your world.

You want to know why you should pay taxes for others? Well, why should the majority pay private companies through the nose and suffer nevertheless because their personal circumstances don't match your bachelorhood ideal of life?

Someone's first responsibility to themselves. I'll 100% stand by someone joining the military to get out of poverty. — BitconnectCarlos

The real issue is if the ways to get out of povetry diminish or grow.

In our meritocratic World education is the important way for upward social mobility. If there are no stipends, no way for even a very talented pupil to get into the best schools, then there is a huge problem. If the only route is joining the armed forces...that cannot be good.

Yet if the education you get is so bad and the whole environment is against learning, then one can ask if the problems are typical to Third World countries. It's telling when the English teacher simply cannot speak correct English, or if the teacher simply isn't there in school. Or the class size is something like 80 to 100 in lower or middle school. That's how it is in many poor countries. There's no way an ordinary child will get from their to a highly respected Masters degree.

Hence the gap with the poor and the rich will remain.

And this is a very American thing: that the armed forces gives these kinds of opportunities, gives the ability to study etc. isn't hardly mentioned as an example of that evil socialism/statism/welfare state. Anarcho-libertarians often ridicule government employees, but very seldom do they ridicule the men and women in uniform. The reason is obvious.

That’s a good point. And as a corollary, military and military force is rarely applauded by statists, socialists and big government types in my experience. There is somewhat of a schism there.