>> These are all either basic human rights that the richest country on earth should provide universally no questions asked as a matter of principal,
That would be true if we were actually "rich". We're often sold this vision that first world countries are somehow "rich". Or at least relatively "rich" to 3rd world countries. And, it simply isn't true. We're slightly better off and able to afford a lot of frivolties like tech gadgets and clothes.
In poor countries, people spend upwards of 90% to 100% on necessities. In so called "1st world" countries, people spend 80% or more on necessities: this data is available, just look at what the average US citizen spends on, 80% plus is all necessities: housing, transportation, food, water, medical care and education. 1st world countries aren't nearly as far ahead as we think we are: most of us don't even have 400$ in savings.
Personally, I know a couple in the top (2%-3% nationwide, roughly 200-300k or so) with high wage tech jobs, but their COL is so high, they don't have their townhouse paid off, they don't even have a backyard to grow food in, they even have to rent out every room of their townhouse just to make ends meet. Do you call that "rich"? And yet, their tax rate is extremely high.
The fruits of American labor and dominism are not distributed equally. Most Americans have these rights and necessities in varying degrees from bare minimum, eg leaded water will prevent death by dehydration but causes other problems. Or housing insecurity due to poor opportunities and insufficient safety nets. This does not mean America is not rich as a country. Just that American leaders are incompetent at the wheel. It's been established that America has the means to feed, house, and clothe everyone. Yet it's still an issue. Just a political one.
You've not responded to several of my points and are instead writing paragraphs about the headline summary of my comment. I'm not sure what points you're even trying to make here, maybe you're just venting? You started off talking about what is provided to Americans, when I elaborated on the things you've brought up you've moved onto different topics.
Percent of income spent on necessities is not a comparable metric between developed and developing countries when using it to make unspecific sweeping claims about progress. You're conflating American accomplishments with individual metrics. The two are related yet separate issues.
Your friends making 2-300k are fiscally irresponsible in my opinion. If someone making 6-10x median income can't figure out what millions of other people have on a fraction the income then that says more about the person than anything else.
That would be true if we were actually "rich". We're often sold this vision that first world countries are somehow "rich". Or at least relatively "rich" to 3rd world countries. And, it simply isn't true. We're slightly better off and able to afford a lot of frivolties like tech gadgets and clothes.
In poor countries, people spend upwards of 90% to 100% on necessities. In so called "1st world" countries, people spend 80% or more on necessities: this data is available, just look at what the average US citizen spends on, 80% plus is all necessities: housing, transportation, food, water, medical care and education. 1st world countries aren't nearly as far ahead as we think we are: most of us don't even have 400$ in savings.
Personally, I know a couple in the top (2%-3% nationwide, roughly 200-300k or so) with high wage tech jobs, but their COL is so high, they don't have their townhouse paid off, they don't even have a backyard to grow food in, they even have to rent out every room of their townhouse just to make ends meet. Do you call that "rich"? And yet, their tax rate is extremely high.