Originally posted by: JD50
You guys hate the rich and want to drive them out of this country, when they are the ones that own the companies that pay decent wages. You hate walmart because they don't pay as much as you think they should, although they still provide jobs to people who need them. So who exactly do you think is supposed to create these great middle class jobs for everyone? You do realize that there has to be a lower class right? There has to be people to fill the lower wage jobs.
I don't hate the wealthy nor do I hate Walmart.
Who's going to create the all of these middle class jobs? The U.S. economy already has the ability to create them but we're sending them to India and China and importing foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas to fill them in the U.S.
The other issue is what the lower jobs would pay in an "American free market" economy (one that isn't suffering global labor arbitrage--no foreign outsourcing, no work visas, no mass immigration, no illegals). Since the supply of labor would then be limited, wages would have to increase. So, yes, there would still be a lower class and lower class jobs, but they might provide a higher standard of living at the expense of the upper classes which would have to pay more for goods and services.
It should also be noted that the increased expense of labor would encourage businesses to invest more money in labor-saving machines and technology, which would increase productivity, in turn allowing for a higher standard of living in this country.
Also, without the huge influx of legal and illegal immigrants, the lower class would have a higher standard of living because a wide assortment of external costs would decrease. For example, society could reap a cost savings by needing fewer police, fewer prisons, less government-funded health care (for illegals and their children), less education costs (for illegals), and less overcrowding. Presumably, the cost of real estate would also decrease (or increase at a slower rate) since less population growth means a slower increase in the demand for land.
Consequently, in a real American free market, the quality of life for the lower classes would probably increase significantly.
Also, the point you raise--that we must always have a lower class, raises several economic issues. For example, if ladders of upward mobility no longer exist or are very few (because we necessarily must have a lower "slave" class), then might it be morally right to steal money from the wealthy (often born into wealth) and redistribute it to the lower classes?
I don't deny that we'll always have a lower class, but at the same time we should strive for an economy that contains accessible ladders of upward mobility for those people who are willing and able to move up. Also, we should strtive to have an economy where a rising tide of prosperity does in fact "lift all boats".