"In any capitalistic system, there can be no wealth without poverty." - True statement? Why or why not?

Question

If the US had full (100%) employment, for instance, the wage pressures would cause inflation. Logically then, someone MUST BE POOR for capitalism to function

This is but one example

Or better, I like the way George Carlin puts it:

"If everyone gets rich, who's gonna clean all the @*%! toilets?"

Answer 1

A very true statement. Riches, wherever found whether it be in mining gold, producing food or building roads, has to be done by the sweat of someones labour. Man sweats to put food on his table. He does not directly benefit from what he produces only from what his labour is worth, and how much the owner/employer is willing to pay him. The poorer he is the less he will accept, after all half a loaf of bread is better than no bread. Meanwhile the capitalist masters will amass more profit. Look at the amount of goods produced in third world countries, often employed by huge companies that can afford to pay more. Many companies in the UK have outsourced work purely to increase profit with little regard to the effects on this country. All done in the name of profit aka capitalism. We need the poor to keep the rich getting richer. BTW... Even if I was rich I would still clean my own s**t as I do have some self respect for my fellow man.

Answer 2

Yes, because competition drives capitalism. Therefore big corporations will out compete small business and the rich will out compete the poor.

However, there is no political system i.e. Socialism, Communist, Fascist - that does not have a class system. Capitalism bridges the gap between rich and poor better than any other system because the "Middle Class" is the majority.

Answer 3

I believe that everyone can have some degree of wealth with true capitalism. The "poverty" issue is arbitrary. In the US the working so-called poor are better off than most of the rest of the world.
To me, poverty means not enough food to eat, no job, inadequate shelter, no clean clothes.

Answer 4

We are very close to what most economists would call "full employment", which is to say an unemployment rate of approximately 4%. We will always have those members of our society that will not or connot contribute but I don't think that a permenant underclass is a prerequisite for a successfull capitalistic society

Answer 5

poverty is almost a choice. anyone who truly wants to work can. can a person on the low end have a new car, new boat, 3000 square foot home? no. but can you provide the basics while trying to improve? yes. and my reply is specific to the USA.most people without a job, short of the elderly and infirmed , can work it is just they feel certain things are below them so, they take gov asst(ironic huh?). if everyone worked that could and no one abused the gov asst programs the whole USA would be in fine fiscal shape. but that is like asking criminals to please stop using guns when you commit crimes. get a haircut and get a job!!(musical sarcasm) so yes you must both but it is relative.

Answer 6

It really relies upon on the shape of adult adult males. as an party, i really am (I daresay) really fairly nicely-off in existence with reference to economic topics and looks and that i understand it (the actual aspect is i have self assurance that to be genuine, no longer that that's a actuality). If a guy has one of those personality as I, then your assumption is sweet, they do in assessment to chasing females down, because there's a feeling that finally a good woman will come by technique of in any case. in spite of the indisputable fact that, it would want to be reported for most adult adult males who do no longer have such self-self assurance (or ego from time to time). Then it will be reported that females who're 'unavailable' (yet who isn't relationship him on the time) seem more advantageous alluring because of the secret and the organic propensity to understand/come across more advantageous about the female. decide therefore even if the guy you're considering is self-positive to my degree, or someone who really needs to come across a lady. once that judgement is made, you'll understand the answer on your question. good success!

Answer 7

There must be competition for jobs at the lowest level. Thus a certain number of people have to be unemployed to maintain a bargaining position for businesses. If no one was unemployed then business would be at the mercy of the employees who could make unlimited demands without any threat of losing their jobs.

Answer 8

Of course there will be people with low paying jobs, but why couldn't they educate themselves and invest a little of their income wisely and become wealthier as a result? I see nothing deterring them besides a lack of determination.