The underclass: Why it still exists, and why it needs to stay

[Machiavelli25]

In our modern age, people often seem obsessed by the percentage of 'poor' in comparison to the 'rich'.

Most of them view the concept abstractly, without any real understanding. The truth, as I see it, is that society (in its current technological state) requires an underclass. Without the poor, our lifestyles cannot exist.

Such is the natural way of things. Society is full of different roles. Some of these roles include being a successful lawyer, some involve working in a factory, others as a farm labourer, serving you food, etc. All these different roles, in their own way, are vital to society, and untill we find a way of fullfilling them without humans, things cannot change.

We, as a race, are still feudalistic. I would consider myself successful, and even wealthy for my age, but the truth is I'm in the same position as the majority of people on this forum. All of us are now Lords living in castles, our existence privileged as befits the top 5%, but our serfs no longer live with us. They reside in other countries.

The effect of raising the living conditions of our lower brackets (within developed nations) has simply taken away the role of underclass from the traditional suspects in our own nations and shifted it overseas. And this, as said, cannot be changed.

So instead of worrying over it all, I say do what I do: Accept it, live your life, and enjoy things while they last.

[Haakon]

I disagree. We dont need the poor, but we do need people who can hold jobs that doesnt require a degree or sophisticated level of education. The question is, should we pay the poor nothing, or should we pay them fair wages?
We should pay them fair wages.

I suggest you reflect some more on this.

[Machiavelli25]

Even if they were paid fair wages (though that is rather vague), they'd still be poor, and an underclass, hence the point still stands.

People should be paid whatever their job or role is worth to society.

[Haakon]

Even if they were paid fair wages (though that is rather vague), they'd still be poor, and an underclass, hence the point still stands.

People should be paid whatever their job or role is worth to society.

No, you are wrong. If they are paid fair wages they would not be poor. They would not need to work 3 jobs, or work under terrible condictions. They could afford to live under reasonable conditions, and afford to not go to bed hungry.

Being an underclass doesnt mean you have to be poor. Everyone is underclass compared to Bill Gates, but not all are poor. *Class* can be pretty dynamic.

People should be paid whatever their job or role is worth to society.

My closest neighbour is a professor. Hes worth less to me than the guy who clears the strweet of snow during winter time, or the police officers who beat up chase after the criminals outside my apartment.

[Machiavelli25]

No, you are wrong. If they are paid fair wages they would not be poor. They would not need to work 3 jobs, or work under terrible condictions. They could afford to live under reasonable conditions, and afford to not go to bed hungry.

Being an underclass doesnt mean you have to be poor. Everyone is underclass compared to Bill Gates, but not all are poor. *Class* can be pretty dynamic.

All this is very vague, could you provide an example of someone you believe to be in the underclass who is paid an 'unfair' wage, and then provide what they should be paid, and why the new wage is fair?

My closest neighbour is a professor. Hes worth less to me than the guy who clears the strweet of snow during winter time, or the police officers who beat up chase after the criminals outside my apartment.

No doubt. But we are talking about the worth of roles to society as a whole, not to you personally.

[Pickle_mole]

No, you are wrong. If they are paid fair wages they would not be poor. They would not need to work 3 jobs, or work under terrible condictions. They could afford to live under reasonable conditions, and afford to not go to bed hungry.

Being an underclass doesnt mean you have to be poor. Everyone is underclass compared to Bill Gates, but not all are poor. *Class* can be pretty dynamic.



My closest neighbour is a professor. Hes worth less to me than the guy who clears the strweet of snow during winter time, or the police officers who beat up chase after the criminals outside my apartment.

Wealth is relative. In what other time in history did poor people get fat?

[Thorn777]

Wealth is relative. In what other time in history did poor people get fat?

Well today these western foods are so cheap they can even keep Africans skinny by destroying their domestic agriculture.

There is reasons why the govt subsidizes agriculture so much, and there is national security reasons to that as well. If those bottom 50 million Americans currently on >food-stamps< get really hungry they get worried about what struck them in more traditional ways.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Even if they were paid fair wages (though that is rather vague), they'd still be poor, and an underclass, hence the point still stands.

People should be paid whatever their job or role is worth to society.

They would be relatively poor, not absolutely. Big difference.

[Squiggle]

I disagree. We dont need the poor, but we do need people who can hold jobs that doesnt require a degree or sophisticated level of education. The question is, should we pay the poor nothing, or should we pay them fair wages?
We should pay them fair wages.

I suggest you reflect some more on this.

Whats fair is whats low, by virtue of the fact that it requires no education, and therefore the supply is large and easily replaceable. If we paid them a decent wage relative to skilled labour, people just wouldnt educate themselves. So what the OP said was perfectly valid, we need unskilled labour and unskilled labour will almost always be cheap and easy labour, and it should be.

[Holger Danske]

I disagree. We dont need the poor, but we do need people who can hold jobs that doesnt require a degree or sophisticated level of education. The question is, should we pay the poor nothing, or should we pay them fair wages?
We should pay them fair wages.

I suggest you reflect some more on this.

Sweet.
Tell me which company would happily go along with this, when they know their competitors would get the same job done for much less...

[Jingles]

In our modern age, people often seem obsessed by the percentage of 'poor' in comparison to the 'rich'.

Most of them view the concept abstractly, without any real understanding. The truth, as I see it, is that society (in its current technological state) requires an underclass. Without the poor, our lifestyles cannot exist.

Such is the natural way of things. Society is full of different roles. Some of these roles include being a successful lawyer, some involve working in a factory, others as a farm labourer, serving you food, etc. All these different roles, in their own way, are vital to society, and untill we find a way of fullfilling them without humans, things cannot change.

We, as a race, are still feudalistic. I would consider myself successful, and even wealthy for my age, but the truth is I'm in the same position as the majority of people on this forum. All of us are now Lords living in castles, our existence privileged as befits the top 5%, but our serfs no longer live with us. They reside in other countries.

The effect of raising the living conditions of our lower brackets (within developed nations) has simply taken away the role of underclass from the traditional suspects in our own nations and shifted it overseas. And this, as said, cannot be changed.

So instead of worrying over it all, I say do what I do: Accept it, live your life, and enjoy things while they last.

I can't really disagree with that. Those wonderful internal contradictions of capitalism at work. But then nothing's perfect...

[Haakon]

Without the poor, our lifestyles cannot exist.

You have no grounds for this claim. Unless "our" means the richest 5%.

The effect of raising the living conditions of our lower brackets (within developed nations) has simply taken away the role of underclass from the traditional suspects in our own nations and shifted it overseas. And this, as said, cannot be changed.

This was the argument used by the industrial age factory workers who had women and children work 14 hours a day six days a week. "It cannot be changed"

When we lifted our working class out of poverty, our entire civilization become ritcher.

So instead of worrying over it all, I say do what I do: Accept it, live your life, and enjoy things while they last.

Basically what you are saying is **** YOU GOT MINE!

[Machiavelli25]

You have no grounds for this claim. Unless "our" means the richest 5%.

Of course thats what I mean.

This was the argument used by the industrial age factory workers who had women and children work 14 hours a day six days a week. "It cannot be changed"

When we lifted our working class out of poverty, our entire civilization become ritcher.

Yes, but the truth is those factory workers were replaced by others living overseas.

Basically what you are saying is **** YOU GOT MINE!

Sorry, don't understand this sentence.

Pretty much everyone in the US on minimum wage. They should be paid well enough so they wouldnt have to hold 3 jobs in order for ends to meet. The new wage would be fair because it would allow these people to go home after work and spend time with their children.

But why is that fair in relation to their job? There's a reason they are paid the minimum wage.

What worth would someone with a master in art history have?

They have knowledge and skills in their field very few others possess, which raises their value to society.

[Haakon]

Yes, but the truth is those factory workers were replaced by others living overseas.

That only started to happen a few decades ago. And the motivation was to give even more money to share holders. Basically the megacorporations went from making billions, to making many billions. the motivation was greed, nothing more.

Sorry, don't understand this sentence.

Its a term used when people say "I dont care if you are poor and suffer because I got mine and thats all I care about".

But why is that fair in relation to their job? There's a reason they are paid the minimum wage.

Yes, and the reason is exploitation. When you work three jobs, you would be forced to neglect the upbringing of your children. This leads to social problems such as crime. This is all well documented.

They have knowledge and skills in their field very few others possess, which raises their value to society.

Their knowledge and skill is worthless. And their knowledge and skill produces nothing of value. The same can be said about many types of degrees. Just because you study a field for many years and receive a magical diploma, doesnt automatically mean you are more valuable in any way.

Of course thats what I mean.

If you are in the same class as bill Gates then good on you I guess. The remaining 95% of the planet, is not.

[Machiavelli25]

That only started to happen a few decades ago. And the motivation was to give even more money to share holders. Basically the megacorporations went from making billions, to making many billions. the motivation was greed, nothing more.

The motivation for all life is essentially greed.

Its a term used when people say "I dont care if you are poor and suffer because I got mine and thats all I care about".

I pay my taxes, which means I likely contribute more to social services than you do. Where do you live? Do you realise that if society as it functions currently was altered so people are paid disproportianately to their value, your way of life, including posting on an internet forum, would become no longer tenable?

Yes, and the reason is exploitation. When you work three jobs, you would be forced to neglect the upbringing of your children. This leads to social problems such as crime. This is all well documented.

Its unfortunate, yes. But there is no alternative.

Their knowledge and skill is worthless. And their knowledge and skill produces nothing of value. The same can be said about many types of degrees. Just because you study a field for many years and receive a magical diploma, doesnt automatically mean you are more valuable in any way.

This is utter nonsense. I don't know much about Art History, but if it was worthless to society, it wouldn't be taught as a degree. Culture, art, philosophy etc carries significant value btw.


And no, Bill Gates is not in 5% bracket . He's more in the 0.000000005% one.

You and I however, and even people in developed countries living on the minimum wage, are mostly in the 5%.

[Haakon]

The motivation for all life is essentially greed.

And it does not in nay way justefy exploitation or crime in any way.

I pay my taxes, which means I likely contribute more to social services than you do. Where do you live? Do you realise that if society as it functions currently was altered so people are paid disproportianately to their value, your way of life, including posting on an internet forum, would become no longer tenable?

I live in Oslo, Norway. And I have paid my taxes since 1994. How you contribute more than me is something you have to elaborate further.

Its unfortunate, yes. But there is no alternative.

Yes there is. Its called a fair distribution of wealth.

This is utter nonsense. I don't know much about Art History, but if it was worthless to society, it wouldn't be taught as a degree. Culture, art, philosophy etc carries significant value btw.

Please explain to me, of what value a doctorate in philosophy of ufology holds to society. Are you aware of how universities work? you can get a degree in pretty much anything.

And no, Bill Gates is not in 5% bracket . He's more in the 0.000000005% one.

You and I however, and even people in developed countries living on the minimum wage, are mostly in the 5%.

It used to be 5% but things change. The point is still the same. Take a look at this quote :

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth

[Haakon]

All this is very vague, could you provide an example of someone you believe to be in the underclass who is paid an 'unfair' wage, and then provide what they should be paid, and why the new wage is fair?

Pretty much everyone in the US on minimum wage. They should be paid well enough so they wouldnt have to hold 3 jobs in order for ends to meet. The new wage would be fair because it would allow these people to go home after work and spend time with their children.

No doubt. But we are talking about the worth of roles to society as a whole, not to you personally.

What worth would someone with a master in art history have?

[Enemy of the State]

An economist would cry when reading this.

[Rolling Thunder]

An economist would cry when reading this.

Believe me, I nearly did. The sheer level of stupid in this thread is mind crushing.

Firstly, do an underclass need to exist? No. Underclasses tend to have severe externalities associated with them that hamper the health and wealth of those in them and those around them. Do we need people to do menial or dangerous jobs? Yes. Do they need to be an underclass? No. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

[Machiavelli25]

Hakon I think you have entirely missed the point I was making. And yes it is your responsibility to define fair, since you brought it up.

Robbery is against the law, therefore I am protected from armed gangs by the government. Regardless, the only people with a genuine cause to take up violence against the rich live thousands of miles away for the most part.

Believe me, I nearly did. The sheer level of stupid in this thread is mind crushing.

Firstly, do an underclass need to exist? No. Underclasses tend to have severe externalities associated with them that hamper the health and wealth of those in them and those around them. Do we need people to do menial or dangerous jobs? Yes. Do they need to be an underclass? No. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Fantasy. It is impossible for someone to work 12 hours a day in a factory without being part of an underclass.