Does Society Need a Lower Class?

[Jon Shafer]

Possible research paper topic and something I've been thinking about for quite some time... does society need a lower class to function?

Whether it's Middle Age peasant serfs who are nothing more than part of the land they work on, the black slaves of the Confederate South, or even today, the guys who are perpetually forced to flip burgers at McDonalds, does this 'class' have to exist?

In the past (and still up to now), it's always been necessary. After all, you need someone working the land, or taking care of the cheap labor service occupations. If everyone has a doctorate and wants to go design circuits or whatever, who would be left to do the 'dirty work' of society? If society does require a lower class, does it really subconsciously push the people on the bottom down as low as it can in order to preserve its existence? In the future, it may be possible that robots could take over this area of work (at least, until AI takes over the world and we end up slaves to the computers), but what do you think? What would happen if welfare worked, and everyone could get a good education and was, theoretically, qualified for an upper-middle class job or higher?

 

[napoleon526]

I think that, until robot labor becomes cheap and reliable, we will always need a group of people who are willing to work in unpleasant jobs for little money. Janitors, factory workers, migrant farmers, miners, etc. all fulfill needed positions in our economy.

 

[CivCube]

But technically speaking, there will always be a lower class. If robots take over dirty stuff, than won't the middle class become...? j/k

That would be neat, though. Those who never had a say would become whatever piece they wanted, and not mere pawns.

 

[WillJ]

Yes, there definetly needs to be people (or a substitute for people, such as robots, as you pointed out) that need to do the "dirty work." ...

Originally posted by Trip
What would happen if welfare worked, and everyone could get a good education and was, theoretically, qualified for an upper-middle class job or higher?

... However, that doesn't mean that there needs to be a class of uneducated and untrained people. If everyone had a doctorate, the doctors that were slightly less qualified to do high-level work would have to settle for the dirty work, since the demand for the middle-/high-class work would be taken. Not to mention that some people actually want to work the land or flip burgers.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Trip
Whether it's Middle Age peasant serfs who are nothing more than part of the land they work on, the black slaves of the Confederate South, or even today, the guys who are perpetually forced to flip burgers at McDonalds, does this 'class' have to exist?

In the past (and still up to now), it's always been necessary. After all, you need someone working the land, or taking care of the cheap labor service occupations. If everyone has a doctorate and wants to go design circuits or whatever, who would be left to do the 'dirty work' of society?

That depends on how you regard that work. Not everybody likes designing circuits better than farming for example, the difference usually is not the appeal but the salary.
If you reduce that (basically Socialism) or eliminate it (bascially Communism) that could lead to a system where all occupations are taken without some being a lower class.

What would happen if welfare worked, and everyone could get a good education and was, theoretically, qualified for an upper-middle class job or higher?

People remain differently talented, they could still work along their talents. That could be more efficient than the current distribution. I for example would be a terrible farmer or craftsman, but my cousin could do that well. On the other hand he can't even add and subtract properly.
So now I'm headed for the academic class while he's going to be part of the so-called lower class. But the only thing that makes it lower is the money and the definition which is of course made by the upper class. Both could be changed without stopping the system from working, in my example we'd still do the same jobs, just with different valuation.

 

[sween32]

isn't that the point of capitalism? all men are created equal, but where you go from there is up to you.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

The best theoretical solution I've ever seen to the "underclass" is in Aldous Huxley's book "Island", where people cycle through jobs month to month or week to week- one day you are a janitor or a garbage man, next time you are a teacher or a farmer or a mechanic, etc.

I believe in a higher minimum wage, and in letting youngsters and/or prisoners do the least rewarding work. We've got enough prisoners in the US...

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I believe in a higher minimum wage, and in letting youngsters and/or prisoners do the least rewarding work. We've got enough prisoners in the US...

Hey! The children are our future!

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I mean, like fast food jobs, telemarketing, etc.- the low paying jobs nobody should have to carry on into their twenties/thirties...

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
The best theoretical solution I've ever seen to the "underclass" is in Aldous Huxley's book "Island", where people cycle through jobs month to month or week to week- one day you are a janitor or a garbage man, next time you are a teacher or a farmer or a mechanic, etc.

That sounds alot like Mao's fateful ideas along the lines of "sending the intellectuals to the fields". Fact is that people aren't equally abled, that different people can do different things differently well.
It is far more efficient to use the specific talents of every individual instead of artificially neglecting them.

Originally posted by sween32
isn't that the point of capitalism? all men are created equal, but where you go from there is up to you.

The point of Capitalism is that you go whereever you or Daddy can buy you in, no matter how qualified you are for it.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Do you think that this could ever change?

At another forum, someone remarked that the need for humans to cover menial jobs will never go away, as robots will only be able to do so much until 100/150+ years in the future.

Someone may be good as a farmer, but when being a farmer means that you get paid half minimum wage, treated like dirt and pushed around by aristocrats, then what?

Do you really think that everyone is qualified for something? While some people are better than others at things, what will become of those who are good with manual labor jobs? In the future, an 'employer' can simply buy a robot that will work forever, never complain, and be 100% efficient. What becomes of him?

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Trip
Someone may be good as a farmer, but when being a farmer means that you get paid half minimum wage, treated like dirt and pushed around by aristocrats, then what?

My point is that it doesn't have to be that way, at least theoretically.

Do you really think that everyone is qualified for something?

Good question, but the answer is probably yes. And if there are some who aren't that won't be too many to be handled by a welfare system. They could be artists, then.

While some people are better than others at things, what will become of those who are good with manual labor jobs? In the future, an 'employer' can simply buy a robot that will work forever, never complain, and be 100% efficient. What becomes of him?

Well that's a problem, a problem that you can get rid of by getting rid of employers.

The answer to your question is, there has to be a lower class as long as there has to be a class system, which means as long as there has to be Capitalism, which bases on a class system.
So the question basically translates to the question if Capitalism is needed forever, and my answer to that is "certainly not". Others will give you different answers, though.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
The best theoretical solution I've ever seen to the "underclass" is in Aldous Huxley's book "Island", where people cycle through jobs month to month or week to week- one day you are a janitor or a garbage man, next time you are a teacher or a farmer or a mechanic, etc.

It is funny because i was thinking about "brave new wolrd" from Aldous Huxley.

Human beeing were factory made ( artificial fecondation and artificial incubator) and some of them got the Alpha tag, some other beta,... to epsilon. This determine their I.Q and thus their futur.

The epsilon were mopping the floor while Alpha got higher class job.

Robots are the only way to free us from boring work.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Hitro
Well that's a problem, a problem that you can get rid of by getting rid of employers.

And how might you suggest that happen?

The answer to your question is, there has to be a lower class as long as there has to be a class system, which means as long as there has to be Capitalism, which bases on a class system.
So the question basically translates to the question if Capitalism is needed forever, and my answer to that is "certainly not". Others will give you different answers, though.

Agreed. One day things will change, but history has showed us that capitalism/democracy is still the best system for mankind as the current mindset exists. I suppose I'm somewhat of a cynic, so it will be a hard transition to get things going well. I wonder what Marx would say about how the 20th century went.

Does anyone have any books/sources/websites/etc. with more information on this topic? Like I said, this is probably research paper material, and the more info I can compile the better.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Trip
And how might you suggest that happen?

Well, by lining them up and than start sh... ahm... I mean... peacefully.
Yeah peacefully, definetely.

Agreed. One day things will change, but history has showed us that capitalism/democracy is still the best system for mankind as the current mindset exists.

Well that is the question, actually.
Democracy is, I agree, but that is only the political system. I think history has showed us that Capitalism, at least pure Capitalism, leads to massive suffering and that pure Socialism leads to abuse of power which then leads to massive suffering. The best in the current situation is probably a balance between Capitalism and Socialism, the question is where to set that balance.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Like I said it really all just depends upon the mindset of society. As I was planning on continuing in my previous post (but didn't for some reason... guess my mind kind of trailed off before I completed the thought), things have changed radically, but that's mainly because of how people look at things. 400 years ago, you had your class and that's how things were. Think of Voltaire's Candide here. It's not that mandkind itself has changed so much in the past 4 centuries, it's just how people born view the world. Now, for a kid born into middle-class America to believe that he would be born into peasantry and spat upon by 2% of the population which owns 80% of the wealth, have no chance of doing anything but shoving a hunk of metal into the ground for 40 years until he dies by the time he's 10 or 12 years old would be ludicrous. Just the same as if the same kid would think that the status quo would be never having to work in his life, being served by machines and fighting wars with intergalactic aggressors.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Hitro

That depends on how you regard that work. Not everybody likes designing circuits better than farming for example, the difference usually is not the appeal but the salary. If you reduce that (basically Socialism) or eliminate it (bascially Communism) that could lead to a system where all occupations are taken without some being a lower class.

Just remember what Winston Churchill said: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

 

[Archer 007]

There will always be a lower class. Economics forces some people downward its a fact of life. The only class that could be removed is the middle class.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Just remember what Winston Churchill said: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Winston Churchill? The guy who tried to kill Grandma?

Seriously Sharpe, what's the point of reciting that? I know what Socialism has brought my family, I also know what Churchill has brought it.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Just remember what Winston Churchill said: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Bravo! I've got to write that one down!