The poor have those things because they still have some amount of power. They're still needed for work, and if you make too many of them too desperate, they can threaten the people at the top. But if you let the wealth (and power) gap get too large this will no longer be the case, and the poor might lose access to those things. If the wealth gap becomes such that the rich can afford automated production and protection but the poor can not, the current economic and political systems will no longer have a reason to give access to any of those things to the poor.

Speaking as someone who has been truly poor, if you're lucky enough to have a "home", the water is probably poisoned or flammable from some sort of mining. Health care, in the US? You may be better off with a witch, which is certainly cheaper. You may have access to appliances, and some of them may even work. Fresh veggies contaminated with shit from increasing cost savings being applied to every form of production. Glass windows are available in increasingly "sealed for energy efficiency" homes festering mold. Synthetic fiber clothing, as cotton and wool are way to expensive and "TVs" that phone home about every ad you are increasingly being served even with your "ad free" subscription. Being able to speak to someone across the world with one touch of a button is fairly new, however pressing 7/11 buttons, and before that dialing 7/11 buttons, and before that speaking to someone to make the connection for you did the same job, usually without ad bombardments. Before that was the press of one button many many times. Patrick Stewart was excellent.

I think you want to replace fresh vegetables and fruits with processed ready meals.

Being available is not equal to a person being able to afford it.

Maybe you were writing about middle class and not the poor?

Kings has dozens or hundreds of people who did all those things for them, and more, at their command.

Do you define have as own or as in can afford to utilise momentarily?

I think it’s disingenuous to imply that there isn’t an inequality issue because the basic standard of living has advanced since the Middle Ages. Even if we compare the standard of living for say, Mississippi lower third and Uganda lower third, it’s obvious that you’re better off in Mississippi. However, the fact that the wealth and means to uplift the poor actually exists in the US but is not exercised is itself an issue - Uganda does not have that possibility.

I'm not to certain about the healthcare and aircon.

And none of these give them the freedom, agency, a past noble or a king had.

My parents had access to cheaper housing, less red-tape and fixed working hours, more job security than my generation, when I was born.

So now insert BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE FLAT PANEL TV AND IPHONE in retarded Sponge Bob chicken meme here.

> America's poor today have clean water, health care

Clean water depends on how you define "clean" e.g. from https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/united-states-water-poll...

> Current EPA data reveals that nearly half of all tap water in the United States contains detectable levels of PFAS chemicals

There's also plenty of contamination violations (apart from maybe Hawaii with only 2) of the water supply.

As far as health care goes, I thought that most people in the USA will refuse to get an ambulance due to the expense. I've also heard of plenty of reports that poor people will not visit a doctor for minor health issues even though they may be early signs of much more serious issues.