Do poor people exist, because of rich people

Question

I watched a programme about hollywood, where celebs are given free stuff all the time to promote the company thats giving them, now forgive me if im wrong, but how can america live and survive in a society where rich people pat eact other on the back, reward each other with gifts and if your poor you get nothing, how can people struggling pick themselves out of the gutter when it seems the selfish degrading shallow self promoting rich bastardsss only care about themselves, i don't mean give us your money, i mean we deserve money and happiness aswell, do poor people exist because they are being kept there, rich people have been draining the finances of the poor for too long, it has to stop and soon im predicting.

Answer 1

It seems to be the case.  Historically the "poor" have always been a resource for those in a better status to use.  This is true whether I hire an employee or maintain a slave.  

Government contract rules are often on a "cost plus" basis.  The "plus" is a percentage of my costs including labor.  Therefore in such a contract I make a percentage off of each laborer's efforts.  There is a built in incentive to have more costs including more labor.  

There is a prestige factor as well.  On your resume (CV) if you indicate you employ or manage 10 workers it is not as "good" as if you manage 10 times that amount.  You seem to be at the top of a bigger pile of human energy.

But to say that the poor "exist" because of the rich may be to turn the argument on it's head.  Does it necessarily follow?  Is it possible for someone to be rich without exploiting workers?  

First, you have to ask if a foundation can be a foundation without the building.  Can it exist.  Probably so because it is where you start.  It is a thing unto itself before any of the subsequent structure is added.  But what about the roof. The roof that sits on the ground after a hurricane might be called a roof even though it's purpose is now reduced by the number of floors it fell, but it does not seem like the same thing.  It exists in name only.  It's function is gone.  I can replicate a building upon an old foundation but not under a fallen roof.  It depends upon what is below for it's function.  

The CEO can get lost in a woods just like anyone else.  He may act the part of a CEO outside of his position based upon his perceived status.  Deference can be given him by his workers outside of the job but for how long after he has like the roof:  fallen.  Ultimately his status derives based upon his position rather than personal qualities.  It is the extraordinary General who remarkably is well liked and respected by his troops.  They too give him his stature.  It derives from them in the same way that roof is only a roof because it sits upon what is below it.  From it's position alone.  

And all those who are "rich" are not so because of human labor.  Movie stars and sports figures receive wealth based upon human interest.  If they become uninteresting it can have a direct effect upon their incomes.  Inventors and those who sell products also have "wealth" based upon human interest but with the product in the middle.

Rather it seems to be the case that without the poor the rich would not exist.  (Without the foundation there could not be a roof but the foundation alone has substance.)  

Perhaps instead you should ask if there are mechanisms, used by the rich, by which the poor are created (exist) or kept in a status quo.  In any area where there was an equality you might expect the poor to use the mechanism as much as the rich do. For such a thing to exist we should look where there is an inherit inequality between the classes.  It would have to be an inequality in practice, knowledge, means or interest.

Creating new poor people could only come from people who once had more wealth or an increase of population among the poor.  There are some who describe the Great Depression and a whole scale transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.  Likewise inflation is described as a transfer of wealth from those with fixed incomes or savings to those who's savings and incomes are not fixed.  Some say that the stock market in as much as it is manipulated by "insiders" is a means to transfer wealth from those who don't know to those who do know.  We have seen the manipulation of foreign economies (currency speculation) by wealthy individuals and corporation to the point of collapse and the resulting transfer of wealth. (See "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins)  Faced with such a list it would seem that callous disregard for another person's livelihood does exist, however, the balance of your question spoke of something of a less malicious nature.  

With respect to keeping someone in an economic situation, I suspect that the list is equally quite long.  I will use a "company store" as an example.  In early years of coal mining people were brought from Europe to company towns.  Within these towns there would be a "company store" from which the residents could purchase the necessities.  It was a monopoly as it was the only store around.  No one else was allowed a store in the "Company" town.  

One thing that the rich have is means.  They have more money.  This in itself is not important without looking at expenses but often there is income above expenses.  This is discretionary income.  The poor go into debt because they cannot even afford the necessities.  There is no discretionary income.  Every expenditure means something else must be denied.  For the "middle class" today fads promote the same condition.   The company store would have very high cost goods, but would extend credit.  The people would be "free" but "wage slaves."  

Being a "wage slave" limits your options.  Because your options are limited so too are your interests.  The next dollar and the safety of what everybody else is interested in is paramount.  

Too often you see a different morality between the classes.  Each might cry that the other is somehow inferior.  Those of the lower classes tend to follow the religion and morality of their parents.  Like the "discretionary income." granting a more free use of money, there seems to be a more free use of morality and religion among the wealthy.  Less is "set in stone" and more perspectives are relative.  Being relative is less predictable.   The wealthy can more easily take advantage of the predictable masses.

Knowledge.  There has always been a disparity of education between the classes.  One of the reasons companies would get workers from Europe was their lack of the local language.  Often today you see bilingual employers with only foreign language employees.  Those employees are dependent upon their employer.  To some extent we might say that those schooled only in a narrow way might be dependent upon those educated more broadly.  

In the USA  we have promoted education.  In the early part of the 20th century it was almost common knowledge that education was the ticket out of the ghetto.  This is still true.  But you hear much less about education today than you did 50 years ago.  And is it the same?  We see books written about the "secret knowledge of the rich."  

There is an argument that the poor keep themselves down by their own short sighted self interests.  I think that this is true as far as it goes but that there are also social and perhaps political pressures that promote those interests.  When you hear that a company is "only supplying a demand" look for this kind of "subversive" support.  Having lots of cheap credit with limited background checks promotes irresponsibility.  Consequences can be as severe as those from the company store.  People are pushed into a technical education to the expense of a liberal education by higher paying jobs.  The education is not the same.  It is truly results oriented over process and as such it is not adaptable and can become obsolete.  There is less training about how to think over how to find the answers1.  

Even here "answering" is often rewarded over a carefully thought out response.  Frequently, you see the comment, "I agree with that..." next to a "best answer."  The implication is that agreeing with the asker defines what is considered a "best answer."  It does have a validity.  It is like agreeing with the teacher to get the best marks, but what are we validating.

The arts which promote an appreciation for different perspectives are underfunded in favor of giving money to sciences and those who's training is narrowly defined.  Increasingly the country moves into the hands of those who although well schooled are not broadly educated.

It does not have to be this way.  I can conceive of a more symbiotic relationship where those with capacity help those without.  Perhaps they see it as helping the society of which they are a part.  This is something that is not built into our legal or economic system.  The founding fathers of the US created a nation, "under God" and we might infer that they assumed that there would always be another component to our society.  An unwritten part a Belief in something even if it is only "the Good".  To the extent that this other component has declined, to the extent that we have lost our belief in anything, it is possible that our society is slowly missing something that was essential but never explicit.    

Wealth promotes wealth but because it is at the discretion of the wealthy it is most often for the wealthy.

Answer 2

poor people exist. in hollywood people make it out like its rich-people-city, there are so many homeless people over there...omg...but not all rich people are mean. but i do feel like instead of spending millions of dollars on a new watch or  on a new ring give it to someone who really needs that money or that is poor.

Answer 3

It's more like rich people exist because of poor people. The rich profit from the mistakes of the poor, and the poor really love to make mistakes. Sounds crappy, but it's true, think of all of the people in debt in this country. Doesn't keep people from buying things they don't need.

Answer 4

Interesting.

Rich people, like celebrites for example, get high paycheck's because they made there business or people they work for tons of money...

Celebrities =  Rare people, who ended up getting the extremley lucky way out of a real life where bills and other financial stuff doesnt matter to them.

There kind of there to inspire some people that you can do anything you want to to do in life, but really its near luck to become a celebrity.

Answer 5

No, I do not believe so.  But you are assuming that all rich people are like celebrities, and I think they are in a class of their own.  I know many wealthy people who are not like that.  They own small businesses and provide jobs and benefits to their employees.  They do not get free stuff and they complain about prices just like everyone else.  You really can't get so frustrated and consumed by people who have more than you, because it will drain all your energy.  You really have to concentrate more on creating your own destiny.  I also believe that most poor people are in the "gutter" because of the choices they have made, not because celebrities get free stuff.

Edit:

If you think that it is about money and stuff, why is it that most people who win millions in the lottery end up where they were before they won within 7 years?  That's why no amount of money handed out will ever make a difference.  Ever hear of the saying "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

Answer 6

no.  like brandon m said, it is not like a pie chart.

but yes, everyone does deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  at least in america.

Answer 7

yes.

Answer 8

you have a TV and you think you are poor?  

You want to get a bigger welfare check or something?

Answer 9

You can't honestly believe that you are the first person to complain about the rich / poor inequity?

Generally, I believe that you can make it regardless of your current situation.  Sure, there are plenty of people who have had everything handed to them all their lives, but there are also plenty of people who have earned every penny themselves.

If everyone was rich, who would deliver mail?  Who would pick up garbage?  Who would operate the world?

We need to have different levels of people in order to have different functions.  If you are not happy with your level (and yes, this has been said trillions of times) its up to YOU to change it for YOU.

Answer 10

Rich people and poor people have nothing to do with why one is the way the other is.  The American economy is not a pie.  You can not have the entire economy.  In order for a person to become rich, other people do not have to become poor.  There is no correlation.

Poor people are poor because of the choices they've made and continue to make and the way they view/think about things.  There really is no difference b/w someone who is poor and someone who is wealthy other than their minds.  You have to realize that it's a game and you have to learn how to play the game.

Answer 11

No, poor people exist because they either have no skills or are lazy.  This isn't my opinion, it's just the way America works.  If you work hard, you "move on up".  Say college isn't for you, so you start at McDonald's making 6/hr.  Maybe in 5 years you make 7/hr.  Maybe you becomes management and make 10/hr.  Something that is not bad.  But maybe the management position never comes...you're screwed, right?  No, you go to a trade school and work at the same time.  Than you make 12/hr.  Which is enough to support yourself.  If you are not a complete idiot, you can make it in America.  If you are really an idiot like an IQ under 90, you are going to struggle because you can't learn new skills like the normal person with a 110 IQ.  But, you just deal with it.  Poor people exist because some people have no skills.