Come on... you like hot fresh gooey posts and you know it!

OH ok....I admit it. I'm a sucker for the soft mushy ones. All the better to sink my teeth into. ;)

:eek: Stay away:eek:

lol...I can't. The soft posts just keep coming.

No teeth!

we are talking about metaphorical teeth and online posts now aren't we?

Um...yeah, sure we are.

that's ok then.

Now back to the topic at hand...

natural rights?

Men have the right to NO TEETH!!!!

most men are born with no teeth. :)

Yeah, yeah.... ok.

No, he said restructure society so that they were taken care of in a libertarian way - not by the government but by a societal kind of mandatoryness - play nice or leave kinda thing. That's still no-government, and still therefore not really mandatory.

God, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have all freedoms in one politcal government. It is my freedom to make as much money at the expense of others and it is also my freedom to persue happiness which is impossible when I have to work two minimum wage jobs to feed my children. These two scenarios can not work together so you will either have to pick one or try to find the middle ground between them.

Under what scenario involving the 'freedom to make as much money at the expense of others' are you forced to have children and support them with two minimum wage jobs?

--Joe

Ummm.....America right now. If you don't think that it is damn near impossible for some people to get out of poverty you are very naive.

There's no need to hide an ad hom behind a conditional that you know is true, come out and say it!

I'll grant you this reprive, I'll consider that you never adopted this weak position regarding my naivette. It's really, really not something that you want me to call you on.

Let's assume that neither of us is naive, only arrogant.

In fact, my wife and I have lived quite comfortably on about $15,000 a year. I don't think that you are taking into account the low cost of an Associates Degree or the availability of student loans.

Aside from mental issues, there is no reason why a young single or couple, acting frugally and responsibly, shouldn't be able to get a decent paying job and live very comfortably.

Now, if you still disagree, let me know. We can work together to find which factors you are willfully dismissing.

--Joe

I personally know several people who have made fortunes coming from true poverty in the US, it is easier to do here than anywhere else.

You can do it easily here too if you have the desire to. I think there are less people here who care that much about getting rich though. Or maybe we're all just too lazy to bother. :)

It was not my point I was just commenting on it. I would not want to be truly rich, I have seen what it is and don't want anything to do with it any more than I want fame.

I know people that have come out of poverty to live good lives but their desire is so much greater than average it is hard to call it a norm to get out.

I just can't get myself to believe that 40% (or so) of the population is irresponsible, but a catch that I can't see. Unless by that you mean spending next to nothing which can work for some people but not for everyone.

I wouldn't call it the norm to get out either. You weren't discussing norms, however.

Here is my complete answer. You claim that it is 'damn near impossible' for some people to get out of poverty. Let's disregard the mentally and physically handicapped. Anybody currently in poverty can do one of the following to get into the middle class:

1: Over the course of two years, find an unskilled manual labor job that pays a reasonable starting wage.

2: Over the course of four years in a minimum wage job, attain an associates degree to qualify for skilled manual or office work. Over the course of the following two years, find a job in that field.

Would you assert that there is anyone in America that can't do one of those two things? Is there anyone that can not become an HVAC technician in this country? Is there anyone who can not get an AS in Business and become an office mail boy? You say "some people," who are these "some people" who can not achieve a modicum of skill and find an employer who desires it?

I didn't suggest that 40% of America is irresponsible. I'm not sure where you got that number in particular; a little Google-ing suggests that ~12% of Americans live in poverty. I said that anyone who acts frugally and responsibly can get out of poverty. There is another half of the equation. They must make such an achievement a sincere goal.

So, my fully qualified position is that anybody who forms the sincere goal of lifting themselves out of poverty, even unto the middle class, can do so providing that they act responsibly.

I responded to your original post because I felt that you were forming an allegorical America:

You were kind enough to confirm. The truth is, in America you almost entirely get to choose how much success you want to achieve. If you possess any aptitude in a field, you can, through determination, put yourself in its top 20%. The upper strata might be fought over by those of great aptitude and determination, but the top 20% is open to anyone with an initial bit of skill.

Alternatively, if someone is in poverty and they don't care to make a sincere effort to get out, that is their choice as well. Those who wish to make the effort to succeed are not forced to support those who don't wish to make the effort to succeed.

--Joe

piercehawkeye,

It occurs to me that I might have misinterpreted you in all of this. I've had this topic on the brain, and might have been too ready to get it out in words.

I will agree, if it was your original point, that a single parent starting from a low income situation would have to work extraordinarily hard to both improve their situation and provide for their children. It is a possibility that such hardship could befall the innocent, and such a hardship is not accounted for in modern America.

--Joe

Your last post pretty much sums up my belief for that situation. I don't think it is impossible for someone in the lower class to get out, just that it is a lot harder to get out and find a good job than it is for someone who was born into a well to do family.

Personally, what I think think that biggest problem for the lower class is sociological.

I'll agree on all points. You got me on naive. (;

--Joe

There is the underlying stigma that those who are poor must not work hard enough. That if you would just work harder, the money would come. This doesn't take into account many people who serve the public; jobs that require a LOT of skill, a bachelor's degree at minimum, many long hours for relatively little pay. Why do we keep doing it? For me, I've done the corporate thing, the supervisory experience in high tech manufacturing. As tough as it can be, there are satisfactions in this job that can't be measured.

No, maybe me and those like me are not living in poverty, but lacking the cushion of cash that becomes so important when you can't just go buy a new car because yours keeps breaking, hoping to make all the bills. The feeling that why does everything have to be so damn hard? The knowledge that the 10 grand some dude spends on a motorbike (or whatever...just an example) would relieve most of the frustration in your life; it gets old after a period of time.

It's very tough to catch up once you've fallen behind.

As I've said many times...we are losing our middle class and a society without a middle class cannot sustain itself.

Then I think about how lucky I am; how much worse things could be. My electric was shut off for a day and I had to wait for the next day to beg, borrow, and steal the payment. I woke up in the morning and it was under 40 degrees in my place. I thought how horrible it must be to be homeless.

Yet, every day stress of needing more, wanting more, looking for just a little relief from financial worries take its toll on a person.

I'm reminded of The Rocking Horse Winner by DH Lawrence.

(I hope I haven't offended or challenged anyone. It just seemed like a good thread to post some of the issues I have been dealing with as of late.) Thanks for the ears (eyes) :o

I'll drop the argumentative mode here.

I completely agree with piercehawkeye, at least I think I do, that the problem with the poor, or lower middle class, is sociological. As I said, my wife and I lived very comfortably on $15,000 a year, and that included saving for retirement! We drove a car, lived in an apartment, etc.

I think that many get caught up in this materialistic world. When they are young and poor they spend right up to the limits of their paycheck, and 'somehow' the situation just continues until they die.

How much money you make is your choice, as well as how well you want to live on that money.

I think it's one of life's cruel jokes that if you are seeking prosperity you will never find it. Only once I stopped caring about money did I understand how to save it and make it.

--Joe

Not everyone wants prosperity. Some just want a nice little place, a reliable car, some breathing room. Happiness comes from friendships and family; one is better able to enjoy that when not feeling pressed by the weight of the world.

Yep, if only I worked harder. Same old assumption.

I think you misunderstood me, I should be explicit.

When I say that you choose how much money you want to make, I mean it literally and without value judgment.

You once had a higher paying job. You've chosen a lower paying job. Therefor, how much money you make is your choice. Even if this is not strictly true, you understand what I mean.

I'm not saying you should choose to make more money. I'm not saying that if you worked harder that you would make more money, or that in order to make more money you would have to work harder.

Just this, you choose how much money to make. You choose it through your education, through your career, through your choice of city.

By prosperity, I mean a very moderate prosperity. The kind that you describe. It's a kind that I've had on $15,000 a year. We could have lived like that forever, except that the money had strings.

I don't know anything about your situation. You express dissatisfaction, however, and I'm saying that there is a path to your satisfaction that does not depend on anybody else's actions.

--Joe

I think Shawnee brought up a great point with the motivation. I have never experienced it but I am guessing trying to get out of poverty for an average person is similar to running towards something that seems to keep moving farther away. You do get closer in reality but for all the work you put into it, you do not move as fast as you would expect too, taking a major shot at your motivation.

This happens in every class until you get basically a bottomless account. I have seen high school kids spend all their money on nice cars and then complain about how much student loans are going to suck and how the interest rates are unfair when they go to college.

I think that is one of the main reasons for happiness but doesn't explain everything. I personally believe that happiness comes from acceptance. You can have all the true friends in the world but that means nothing if you cannot accept yourself.

Though I'm an ardent libertarian, I can see a good argument here for socialism.

Namely, I can stand back and say that it is possible for anyone with sufficient motivation to achieve any status they like. That's the abridged version of what I stand back and say, anyway. (;

The reality is that a lot of people will fall prey to this sociological effect which keeps them basically unhappy throughout life. Even though every individual would have the power to lift themselves from this situation, perhaps an ideal government should protect its people from this sociological inevitability.

*shrugs* I'm just lucky I'm not in a place to have to decide.

--Joe

That is certainly true, and helps me better understand what you meant.

This is true as well, and I am sure that much of my unhappiness comes from not accepting myself.

You've all given me good things to think about. :)

No one or nothing can make anyone happy, happiness is a choice & irrelevant to this discussion.

Too many people handicap their climb out of poverty with a couple of kids, then turn around and blame the kids for ruining their lives. It's not the kids fault.
A single parent is really screwed because they get no help with child rearing while trying to go to school for a better job. :(


Don't forget "Middle Class" is a moving target. Plenty of people are having trouble staying in the middle class.

This is a bit inaccurate, knowing the kind of financial aid single parents get, while a working young person who is trying to make it on their own, whose parents won't help, who have a car payment and an apartment, who pay their own insurance and generally take care of their lives can make very little money a year and not get a dime of federal or state grants. Also, a young person HAS to report parental income unless one of the following are true: They are 24 or older! They are married. They are orphans, wards of the court, or were until the age of 18. They are veterans or in active military service. OR, they have children for whom they provide at least 50% of the support. That support includes any welfare benefits. The only way out of providing parental information is through an appeal process that must include very well-documented third party proof of ABUSE or ABANDONMENT.The single parent, at this school, gets that one (or two, or three...)more "persons in household" that can make their school not only completely paid for...they get big refund checks from their pell grants every term. Some can quit their jobs when they add in some low interest student loans. Many make good of it, great to see. Many also try to become professional students,and when the feds finally say enough is enough...go to school the rest of your life but not on the govt's dime...they default on those loans with little to no repercussions.

Child care, too, is a huge component of the cost of attendance when figuring student aid.

I'm not saying single parents don't have it rough. I'm just saying the taxpayers without children foot a lot of bills (EIC where a student's total tax LIABILITY is NEGATIVE 6 grand or so on their tax forms is a great example) for these families. As far as I know, young single people didn't ask young single parents to have those children. Some single parents are victims of crappy circumstances...some make it a job and they get paid for it under all kinds of government programs...from housing to schooling.

Two not so hypothetical scenarios: (Please feel free to sub Johnny for Sally and vice-versa, because gender is irrelevant except for who actually bears children...I see single fathers often, too)

1) Johnny's parents are assholes. They treat him like a dog, and refuse to help him with anything. They don't abuse Johnny, they don't beat him...he's just a nuisance in their lives. Johnny moves out as soon as he can, living by flipping burgers at McD's. He works as many hours as possible to get enough money to live. Johnny knows he can do better, and decides to work on a nursing degree. Johnny applies for aid to help with school, and learns he HAS to provide parental information. At this point either a) parents refuse to provide info and JOhnny is fucked or b) Daddy works at GM making 35 bucks an hour and Johnny is fucked. His measly living and dad's paycheck are BOTH considered in the amount Johnny's "family" is expected to contribute to his education. Johnny is eligible for, at maximum...a 2625 student loan for the year, and only get this if his parents supplied info.

2) Sally lives in government subsidized housing, food stamps, govt health care. Sally made 1200 last year. Sally has two kids by the age of 19; her mother watches them most of the time. Sally decides to come to school. Sally reports the 1200 dollars she made last year, and the 2 kids. Sally gets an annual Pell grant of 4050, student loans up to 6625, state aid of 2190, TEAP funding of up to 1200, some other smaller grants. When all is said and done, Sally gets a refund check of a couple grand or more from the pell grant each semester. State grants are applied first and free up the federal pell grant funding which is given to the student...not to mention the 6625 loans she didn't need to touch for college expenses. Sally has tons of time to study: mom watches the kids. Sally flunks out and blames the college and the FA dept and the feds for not helping her out.

There are a million combinations of the above. Like I said, I see the good, I see the bad.

I love kids, I'm just saying there is a flip side to the poor single parent lament that I hear every day. Poor kids didn't ask for their circumstances, that's for sure, in either case.

Not really...we're talking about the government's role in society's well being. Agree or not, it's a lot harder to choose to be happy when you have no food or clothes as opposed to say...making your next Lexus payment. But, if you feel this discussion is also irrelevant then feel free to cut and paste and start another thread.

No, but what you choose to focus on, regardless of your situation, is up to you.
I know poor people who were sick but very happy and loving, who appreciated the blessings they had in their lives and I know and am related to miserable rich people who are healthy with everything anyone could want, but are miserable because they do not have more... no matter what they have and how many people love them they will be miserable because they choose to be egomaniacle megalomaniacs. Choice & irrelevant to this conversation.
Happiness is what you make of what you have not what you do not have.

I think it is more underlying than that rkzenrage. Some people can see good in everything some people can't. While I agree that you have a lot more control over your happiness than you might think, but to be continuously optimistic is a trait not many have.

I was thinking about this earlier today. Maybe this has something to do with always being delusional and an inability to accept one's self in a psychological disorder like bulimia or anorexia?

Again, not can't/inability, choose not to.
Choice/free-will.
A lot of people in here have issues with the idea of accountability.

First, we don't necessarily have free will.

Second, other factors occur that are out of someone’s control. You cannot control your subconscious, which, I think at least, is accountable for creating many obstacles involving happiness.

Happiness is not external, it is internal (just your perception)and a decision based solely on your priorities, unless you are insane.

Exactly, but controlling yourself is the problem. In our world today we are trained to have unrealistic desires and goals, which can lead to obsessions and insanity. As long as we have these desires we cannot have true happiness (in my opinion at least) but the path to ridding these desires is much tougher than we imagine. I think it is possible for many to enjoy true happiness but I personally believe that many have strayed too far and cannot get rid of these obsessions without a full brainwashing.

Also, society would never allow everyone to get rid of these desires; it is like saying that everyone can get an A on a bell curve. These desires and goals are what fuels our economy and what has built our nation. We need these desires to fuel the economy and keep it in motion or America and every other nation would fall apart instantly.

Just because some have to work harder at something than others does not mean it is unfair or wrong.
Natural selection is true in all levels of life... we all have our handicaps and head-starts, just the way it is.
Level playing field is unnatural and should not be.
You can just choose to get rid of the desires, society presents them, you decide to accept them or not.
One can want a car without deciding to need it to be happy.
Again, accountability, you put it outside yourself, I do not.

Where did you get this from? I know people are born better than others. I just believe that we should eliminate head starts so the true best can win.

Do you really think it is that easy? Buddhism is the search for this happiness and it is very rare to find a true Buddhist.

Unless you have an amazing ability to let go of desires, the average person can not let them go in an instant. We can pretend we do but it would tear us apart from the inside.

It is not an "amazing ability" it takes work and discipline, like all things worth doing and having.

I never said "better" I implied talent. I would never assign value to that.

Holy shit! Is this common? I mean you said, "at this school", so is this the rule rather than the exception, across the country? State schools? Harvard? Community colleges? This blows my mind. :eek:

Oh, no...not Harvard! :)

I said this school because, as a community college, we have relatively low tuition. There are schools nearby with even lower due to extensive funding from their larger cities. At a private school, all that money would barely make a dent. Private schools are able to offer a lot more campus based aid, though, due to many factors, one being alumni whose more elite degree affords them better job opportunities (but not always.) Then again, you're not going to see many students at Harvard with a HS GPA of 1.6, or a barely passing GED score. It's demographics. With those demographics come system players. Also with those demographics come the student mentioned earlier, say a single parent who successfully completes a nursing program and is able to make a better life for their families. That's when I love this job! :)

I just feel for the people who fall in the middle; I've often said if my ship ever comes in I would like to donate a scholarship for the students who don't make so little they're fully funded, but who don't make so much that paying for school is an easy task.

Yes, I meant talent not better. Thanks for pointing that out.

Got ya, I know exactly what you mean.
A couple years ago, up in MA, a friend of mind had a student who was exceptional. Father among the missing, crack whore mother, living with Grandma, working in a fast food joint after school to survive.:(

But, like I said, exceptional, so my friend worked with her and for her. The result was she was accepted to Smith Collage....absolutely free, not a dime for anything. Graduating from the seven sisters she'd be set for life. All she had to do is write a paper. It didn't have to be good, in truth probably wouldn't even be read, but part of the procedure. Oh, and it had to be typed.
All through school the girl had hand written every assignment, except when she could squeeze on to one of the school PCs, to transcribe and print her work.

So my friend solicited me when I was at her house thanksgiving weekend. At Christmas she took the girl a PC and printer, to write the paper and take to Smith to use in the fall. Smith like all those elite schools have tremendous support systems for minority and poor students. From the school and girls that came there under the same circumstances as freshmen...freshwomen?

I got a call in the spring that the girl had quit High School a month short and moved from grandma's to crack whore Mom's. I cried.

I didn't respond earlier as I felt I didn't have much to add to the discussion.
But as you mentioned this twice it stuck in my head, so I did some calculations and came back to it.

I don't doubt that you really did live comfortably on $15k because it's not worth lying about. However I'm intrigued as to the circumstances.

Here are my calculations, based on the real life amounts I pay (converted to $ at today's exchange rate to make it easier to read in the US)

All figures per year
Rent - $6,972 (I have the cheapest rent of anyone I know, more usual would be $11,500 plus)
Council Tax - $2,205
Electricity - $709
Gas (household, not car) - $189
Water - $402
Car Tax - $226
MOT $99 (mandatory car test - required annually)
Car Insurance - $450
TV Licence - $259
Phone - $118

Total - $11,629

Now this list covers only mandatory costs.
Not included but recommended:
Breakdown Cover, home contents insurance

(in the interst of frugality the phone is a basic pay-as-you-go mobile, in order to make emergency calls and be contactable in return - quarterly line rental for landline would be much higher)

The amount left per month ($280) has to cover the following for two people:
Car repairs, clothes, family occasions (birthdays, Christmas etc), food and drink, gas (petrol), haircuts, household cleaning products, perishable items like pantyhose, toiletries, prescription charges, suncream, toilet paper..... and apparently saving for retirement.

I could not live "comfortably" this close to the edge. I can only assume some of this is cheaper in the US.

Comfort is opinion too. I am happy with only a few things, some people would be unhappy with what I have and some people would think I have too much to be happy.

In the US, it depends entirely on where you live. $8400 gets you an excellent flat, in most locations.

No "council tax" but there are usually a mix of local and state taxes that add up to about half that.

Electricity: also depends where you live: here, the lowest bill would probably be $1200, but others will see $600.

Water: always included in rent

Car tax: none

Car insurance: usu. about double.

TV Licence: none

Phone: 24.99/month Vonage (or something) = $600, but it's "unlimited" time and long distance. This assumes high-speed Internet, which I cannot live without but others may find unnecessary.

Let me break it down to the best of my memory. (; I don't take it as a challenge to my integrity, and I certainly wasn't proposing that it would be normal to live comfortably on $15,000, we were fairly frugal. We also lived in a...well you'd probably consider it a small town.

Rent: $6,600. $550/month, 1 bedroom apartment.
Car: I'll be liberal here. The car was long since paid off, but I'll figure average cost per year at ($5,500(buying price)-$2,800(selling price) + $1,000(parts and paid service))/4(years of ownership) + $500(insurance per year) so: $1425. I took care of most problems myself.
Gas: Maybe $480. I lived right next to my college and we frequently biked during the summer.
Retirement: $1,200. Meager Roth IRA savings.
Electricity: $360
Internet: $480
Phone: $960. We were still tied to our damn Cingular contract. Now we just have Skype, no cells for the time being but the situation has changed besides that.
All other utilities were taken care of with the apartment.

That leaves about $3500 for other things. We were vegetarian--were as in the wife is now vegan--and made almost all of our own food. I'll guess $1,200 a year, we were pretty frugal. We each had $480 per year personal spending money, and $480 per year mutual spending money. Most of the time though the majority went unspent and back into the pool.

As for the circumstances, that was money from the Montgomery GI Bill. I lived next to a community college and wasn't really "pursuing a degree", except in the mind of the VA office of course. (; I was dinking around with restoring cars...but that's another story.

This was in Oregon too, so no sales tax. $550 a month got us the nicest 1 bedroom in town. (;

We were happy. I had picked up a nice projector on the cheap a few years earlier and we downloaded documentaries from UK Nova. Lots of vegetable lasagna, pasta, grilled cheese sandwiches, fried zucchini, yummy.

Undertoad: Maybe electricity is just cheaper in Oregon, but we had a well insulated apartment with compact flourescent bulbs at got away with less than $30 per month.

The one thing we were lacking in was health insurance. I was notionally insured by the VA. Supposing that we didn't intend to live forever on $15k, we were looking at a policy for about $100 a month that at least would have gotten us treatment for any problem, if a bit of debt for down the road as well. Medical debt, at least in the US, is fairly innocuous as far as debts go.

Thanks for giving me a chance to elaborate. (;

--Joe

Thank you for taking my request in the spirit intended.

I guess it is cheaper to live in the US than the UK. And no doubt this is because we have higher taxes. Mine pay for a safety net that I'm unlikely to fall far enough to use - falling as Shawnee says, in the middle. I just dangle from a single straining hand from time to time.

Par example:

When I last had a car, a kind soul smashed my rear passenger window outside Leyton Tube station. During the day and with nothing in the car worth stealing. In fact the car itself opened with any key (or even a screwdriver) thanks to previous vandalism, so it was sheer badness. I drove the car home and sat on my bed and cried. It was approx 10 days til payday and I had zero money. I had a Travelcard to get to work, food in the fridge and freezer, warmth, light, all the basics.

BUT I couldn't leave the car parked on the street in London missing a window - apart from the fact it was winter it would have shouted, "Abandoned Car!" to every single pikey within hailing distance. Two streets away there was an abandoned factory and burned out cars were a regular decorative feature.

I got the money by a happy coincidence, and got the window fixed that night. But my point is, I can deal without material things. I just can't deal with a minor problem becoming a major one all for the want of some ready cash.

I work hard, if not well. I am not afraid of hard work and have had 3 jobs before, in order to make ends meet, and worked a 60 hour week at 2 jobs in order to pay off debts. I would just like to feel more secure. I'm one unfortunate incident away from having to run home to my parents and throw myself on their mercy. At 34.

Still - am moving to London to share with a friend soon. He is very respectable and if not rich then at least organised. Let's hope I rub off on him rather than vice versa.

I've been to London, and I can understand how things would be more difficult there. I think there's a much higher standard of living in England in general than in the United States. Much more expensive, and I'd guess more pressure to keep up too.

The thing that struck me most in London were the cars. Not a dent, scratch, or peeling clear coat to be seen in central London, that I saw at least, and not much anyway throughout England. Didn't get up to Wales or beyond to see what it's like up there.

And of course, prices of rent just blew me away.

Thanks for letting me babble. I hope things turn out well for you.

--Joe

Edit: Sorry to hear about your car. I think the only way I could deal with that well would involve the help of family. Glad you got it sorted.

The last couple posts in this thread reminded me that I'm either wicked fucking lucky or completely blessed...

Ha! I just noticed your tag line. Richard Bartle is my ex's absolute hero. Bartle now lectures at Essex uni, my ex seriously considered moving south to take his degree down there.

Not sure about that - I used to work for a British company and traveled there a few times - Also worked with many Brits now living in the US. Everything in the US seems to be bigger, louder, and more "over the top". Stereotypical Americans - we want bigger houses and cars - better teeth and more plastic surgery. We have big massive lawns that require tractors to maintain. Our 52" flat screen TVs barely take up any room in our 5000+sq ft homes. Check out the growth trends here: http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=2847

Size isn't the only dictate of living standard. I think the US naturally offers more variety of food, cars, job opportunities etc. Of course I don't know what the actual numbers are for standard of living -so this could just be a bunch of crap - but in my experience, the general public here fares better than the UK - (nothing against the Brits - I loved the time I spent with my British colleagues)

I think I'll embrace the thread drift we've created here. (;

I guess England stretches a bit further north than I thought, and that I've only been to southern England, so I may or may not have gotten an accurate picture.

I guess it's hard to compare England to America. It seemed that there's a much different dynamic between the classes there than here.

In general I noticed mainly how the roads were dominated by new and nice cars and also how expensive everything was. I got the impression that there was an immense amount of money flowing through England in general and London specifically, and that everybody was getting their slice, even if it was terribly small.

Perhaps I shouldn't talk in ephemeral terms like "standard of living", I suppose it doesn't mean much.

As for the other nations of the UK, I didn't get to see them. It's a pity I didn't get to see Wales, I've been rather curious about that side of my family since I discovered that I'm a dead ringer for Christian Bale. (; Well, an exceedingly thin Christian Bale anyway.

Cheers,
Joe

Edit: Gah, and now I find that Bale was born to English parents...being American is so confusing.