> that means that poverty is something to be applauded If you get to accuse me of sour grapes, I get to point out a strawman. Not only does nobody believe that

> that means that poverty is something to be applauded If you get to accuse me of sour grapes, I get to point out a strawman. Not only does nobody believe that, but nobody claimed or even implied it either. Bear in mind that there are many levels of poverty, and even at the same level many experiences. I think it's possible that it worked out for me and my brother, but that's neither certain nor generalizable. We were poor but not destitute, and we were poor for reasons that included our mother's commitment to being present for our childhoods. Not everyone has that. Also, being rich doesn't mean being happy or sane either. In my experience the relationship between later-life happiness and early-life circumstance is barely above statistical noise among those who are rich as adults. But that's not the same as recommending that people be poor, because so many (too many) people remain poor and are thus not part of the sample. I think overlooking that is either bad faith or proving the article's (and my) point. Sometimes poor people have priorities other than becoming un-poor as soon as humanly possible, and those priorities remain valid even if rich sophists don't understand or approve.