Is it wrong or necessary to have a lower class?

[Mapache]

Being lower class could be an arbitrary choice, too. There are wealthy but poorly educated people and very educated people who have less than the average.
Money isn't everything.

 

[aneeshm]

A lower class is inevitable , because not all have the same capacities , and you get rewarded/you earn according to your capacities . It is not a bad thing - any less then oil floating on water is a bad thing .

 

[GenMarshall]

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

I personaly feel that giving the people in the lower end of the Socieo-Economic Spectrum (Lower class and Lower-Middle class) should be able to escape into the upper part of the spectrum. I feel that it is not wrong to do this. I also feel that it is neccisary if the persion in question is willing to have a better life (Or at least one step above his old status to give his children a spring board if he/she hits the Socieo-Economic plateu).

 

[CurtSibling]

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

Hoho!

There always will be a lower class - Not through design but by natural selection.

Because many people default to a lower status by their actions.

...

 

[Clito]

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.

Well said.

However, I think that for the advantage of everyone, a striving middle class is imperative.

Greed is good. Communal spirit hurts us. We were born to exist, and in existence become the greatest. Greed is what we thrive on and we all need to be greedy.

 

[Scuffer]

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.

Some social stratification is inevitable, even in communism. High ranking government officials never struggled for anything, and of course those who are prepared to take chances outside of the law can prosper too.

 

[Elgalad]

Hoho!

There always will be a lower class - Not through design but by natural selection.

Because many people default to a lower status by their actions.

...

What he said.

Uh, God Bless You Curt!

In all seriousness though, lower classes do not denote Lesser individuals. And in successful capitalist societies, members of the so called 'lowest class' are usually still able to have a higher standard of living than even the highest class in collectivist societies.

We do not rejoice in the fact that some individuals are less successful than others. We try to create financial opportunities so that Anyone of Any background can, with talent, hard work, and dedication, rise to the highest level of society. Then we leave it up to them. If they wish to succeed, they will! And when they do, their success will naturally create more opportunities for others to rise as well. It is truly a win/win proposition.


-Elgalad

 

[The Person]

As long as there is money there will always be a lower class, if we want it or not. But we can do our best to make it as small as possible.

And what Curt said.

 

[The Last Conformist]

In all seriousness though, lower classes do not denote Lesser individuals. And in successful capitalist societies, members of the so called 'lowest class' are usually still able to have a higher standard of living than even the highest class in collectivist societies.

Hardly. The lowest social stratum in Western societies - homeless, junkies, mentally ill that have fallen thru the nets - don't enjoy a higher standard of living that do the well-to-do in places like Cuba.


As others have said, we're realistically always going to have an economically lowest class. We'll also, abscent genetic manipulations to standardize human personalities, always have people with higher and lower social status. I don't think anyone is seriously questioning this (commie idealists don't count as serious! ). How this relates to a lower class, tho, is not entirely obvious, since the concept of class isn't entirely well-defined. If differences in socioeconomic status were more or less entirely due to differences in personal ability and effort, would we still call those at lower steps of the ladder a "class"?

 

[Fetus4188]

It's innevitable to have a lower class, if somehow all the lower class moves up a notch to the middle class the middle suddenly becomes the lower class and so on.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Unforunately the problem of poverty does not seem to have a clear cut solution. I do think that the standard of living for almost everyone (at least 98% of the population) will continue to go up in the next century in at least 1/3 of the world if not more. There are somethings that could stop this from happening such as major environmental breakdowns, natural disasters, or some form of a diease that is largely uncurable.

Provided that economic development continues smoothly it is possible that most people will eventually enjoy at least a decent standard of living. There are ways of encouraging upwards social mobility which are very important to utilize. A society which has social mobility is much better off than a highly stratified one (perhaps a trite point to make). Some regions of the world may take much longer than others to achieve this however. However if enough reforms occur it is possible that over the next two hundred years they will grow more rapidly than developed countries thus attaining at least something resembling parity.

If everything were absolutely ideal then no one would be poor.

 

[thestonesfan]

In terms of economy, "Low-class" is simply a label. But there are lot of people that are genuinely low-class in all ways, and there always will be.

Car decals of Calvin urinating on a ford sign? Now that's low-class.

 

[Hakim]

What worries me a lot more than people being poor is lack of social and economical mobility. Socialists sometimes encourage this by claiming that poor people are better and that those who advance are traitors.

Poor people will always exists as long as it's a relative concept. I think some kind of definition should be developed so that it's not always related to the richest people in society.