Is it wrong or necessary to have a lower class?

[cgannon64]

Is it wrong if they are given a fair chance to escape? And isn't it necessary?

 

[Perfection]

It's wrong to judge someone on the amount they earn but unequal distribution of material weath is fine with me.

 

[Sanaz]

To some degree it is inevitable. But, if the middle class shrinks too much, the lower class grows, and the upper class shrinks or stays the same size, but controls a much larger percentage of wealth, there is a big problem. That situation isn't necessary. But, if you have a steady stream of immigrants and young adults, it is healthy and these groups will likely be poor but have the ability to improve their lives. If that isn't an option, hopelessness sinks in, and this hurts society.

 

[Tomoyo]

I think we need to form a caste system in which, when you die you get reborn as the level caste equal to how well you behaved in your previous life. You draw straws for the first life.

 

[cgannon64]

We'll have the Breaurocracy of Reincarnation!

 

[Colonel]

I sense some Communists are going to pop out in this thread

 

[storealex]

It's inevitable. But we should make sure even the poor still have decent lives.

 

[bigmeat]

it's very neccessary, like a coin based economy or pimping

 

[Yuri2356]

No matter how high quality of life becomes, someone will always be on the bottom. That's just the way life is. Even if the bottom is prety hight up the ladder, it will still be there.

 

[newfangle]

Assuming that society's wealth is not divided equitably, of course some people will have less than others.

The only solution is the wealth of society increasing as a whole, and the only way this can be done is through capitalism.

 

[Gogf]

It's absolutely neccesary. If there was no lower class, than the government would be taking taxed from some, to help pay for others. Eventually it would turn into a fully functional communism. Unless we all have the exact same income, there will always be a "lower class." Unless we have communism, we will always have a lower class. Unfortunately, it's good for the economy.

 

[zjl56]

Well there will probably always be poor people. But that doesn't mean we can't try and comfort as many as we can.

 

[storealex]

The only solution is the wealth of society increasing as a whole, and the only way this can be done is through capitalism.

That's only part of the solution. Capitalism alone does not render it impossible for a society to gain as a whole, while still having a lower class stuck in poverty.
A little redistribution of wealth here and there, will make sure no one is left too far behind.

 

[newfangle]

If I thought that human rights could be violated by the whims of any bloke, then I'd agree with you.

 

[storealex]

Is taxes against human rights in your opinion?

 

[newfangle]

You'd have to define human and right for me to answer that. But not in this thread. If there's anything I hate doing, its jacking threads. I hate jacking things.

 

[storealex]

Fair enough. I'll get some sleep then.

 

[Syterion]

Lower class as in less money, then yes, it's inevitable except for communism. But lower class as in less rights and disrespected, that shouldn't be.

 

[slothman]

If lower class people got more money then they wouldn't be lower class. We can still have janitors and "gross" jobs but instead of being paid cents per year they can get a similar salary to CEO's. And then they wouldn't count as lower class though they may be doing work people generally don't like.
I think salaries should be changed anyways so people who do actual work will get high salaries rather than people who just move money around. And it would eliminate a lower class as well since each class has both advantages and disadvantages as well.

 

[luiz]

In any free society, there will be people with less then others.
So, in relative terms, they are poor.

However in absolute terms the poor are not necessarily poor. The poor of the free societies are much wealthier then the middle-class of unfree societies.