My comment unintentionally sounded like I was talking about all the other Americans. I meant to say most of us in the middle class. I am acutely aware that poverty in the US is real. When I talk to my academic friends in Europe and we compare salaries (it's quite common to do that because in the US our salaries are public if we work in state universities), we usually come out with the conclusion that in the US we have a lot more liquidity after accounting for pension, medical, housing, and other expenses.

> I meant to say most of us in the middle class

I know that you Americans use the word 'middle class' in place of 'working class'. No, a professor would not be 'working class'. Its lower upper class at the least. Both in Europe and the US.

Even for the public university case, the Europeans have benefits that you likely don't calculate. From getting state-subsidies per child to rent control to many different things. You shouldnt calculate the difference just over pension, medical and housing.

But isn't that a completely unfair comparison?

"Yeah, if you disregard all the poor people that struggle to stay alive, us rich people are generally much richer".

I think your exact statement is probably true. Because most European countries tries to distribute wealth in such a way that everyone gets to live, with food, healthcare, education and housing. And naturally that means that the 50% wealthiest in Europe are less wealthy than the 50% wealthiest in the US.

But the 50% poorest in Europe are much wealthier than the 50% poorest in the US.