Does Society Need a Lower Class?

[Jon Shafer]

Possible research paper topic and something I've been thinking about for quite some time... does society need a lower class to function?

Whether it's Middle Age peasant serfs who are nothing more than part of the land they work on, the black slaves of the Confederate South, or even today, the guys who are perpetually forced to flip burgers at McDonalds, does this 'class' have to exist?

In the past (and still up to now), it's always been necessary. After all, you need someone working the land, or taking care of the cheap labor service occupations. If everyone has a doctorate and wants to go design circuits or whatever, who would be left to do the 'dirty work' of society? If society does require a lower class, does it really subconsciously push the people on the bottom down as low as it can in order to preserve its existence? In the future, it may be possible that robots could take over this area of work (at least, until AI takes over the world and we end up slaves to the computers), but what do you think? What would happen if welfare worked, and everyone could get a good education and was, theoretically, qualified for an upper-middle class job or higher?

[Spiffor]

You can find several approaches to "lower classes" :

- low income class. These people do a job that is considered unworthy of high pay (janitor for example, but you can imagine any work to be deemed unworthy, like educators in an ignorant society). Welfare nations try to prevent them from being too poor, and try to equalize income. F.e, Sweden has a very little spread of income.

- Class with low quality jobs, like workers, peasants, cashiers, whatever repetitive and alienating job that needs to be done by a human being. AFAIK, there is no society which refuses low quality jobs altogether, even though an international division of labor is occuring, and a many more westerners have interesting jobs than third-worlders : low tech industy was moved to thirld-world countries, while first world countries lead in high-tech industries, and services.
IMHO, societies tend to orient a part of their people towards these low-quality jobs, which can be seen in the education system : Schools reward students that are fit for abstract jobs, but sends other to the unskilled labour market. In France, you can go to a "technical" education as soon as Junior High, and leave the school system at 16. In Germany, there is a clear separation between abstract education and technical education, which is done at the exit of elementary school.
All societies seem to acknowledge the need of people who do repetitive and boring jobs. Even the Soviet Union had no problems having throngs of masons, peasants etc.

- Exploited Class, in the Marxist meaning. Slaves in ancient times, serfs under feudalism, workers under capitalism. This lower class has no power on the economic structure (the infrastructure), and has no power on its future within the system. It is a firm marxist belief that a society can exist without such classes (i.e without a group of people exploiting another group of people), and it would be the ultimate form of society.
Social democracies give the illusion that the working class has no meaning now, since workers have their say in the system through their votes.

Also, note that a "class" in the Marxist meaning can either be class-concious or not. The bourgeoisie (self-aware) tries to hinder the workers to become aware of their belonging to the same class, with the same interests. A class which is not self-aware is a class nonetheless, as these people objectively have the same interetsts (they just do not know so). I don't know the exact denomination in English.

[Spiffor]

Wow, I was the first to post in the OT after the 4 hours downtime

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Trip
does society need a lower class to function?

Sure, how else is my lawn going to get mowed?

[Urban Ranger]

With a robotic lawn mower?

[Jon Shafer]

Nonsense originally posted by Spiffor
Blah Blah Blah...

So how's all that relevant?

[Kramerman]

lower class would not be necessary if we had robots to do all teh menial jobs, i would guess, anyway. im not an economics expert or anything tho.

Kman

[Jon Shafer]

That's a ways away though. Try to fathom the kind of complexity involved in even a basic job, and how difficult it would be for a robot to completely take care of jobs like farming and janatorial work, etc.

[DuncanK]

Teenagers can do the jobs that everyone else doesn't want. They can't be considered another class

[Frankychan]

I don't think we need a lower class. I think if we redistributed the wealth from the "upper" class to the lower class, we'd end up with one BIG a** middle class, a lot of leftover $$$ to help improve social conditions, and more people that would take care of each other.

Besides, all you need is love and beer....

[Jon Shafer]

What would that bloated middle class do then?

'Class' is based as much upon occupation as it is upon wealth. You still need to have people to be janitors and flip burgers. Giving everyone money would mean no one would feel the need to hold those jobs, leading to an economic collapse.

[loinburger]

That's what robots are for -- to do the menial jobs. I'ts little wonder that they eventually get fed up with their shabby treatment and revolt.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Trip
So how's all that relevant?

If you're doing a research paper, you light want to define the terms before beginning your analysis. I thought you wanted information, but I can give you opinions in form of one liners if that's what you really want

[SlowwHand]

Let's see. We have homeless, starving people in all countries.
Nope. I'd say we've got about as low as we can get.
Have you considered ADDING a level?

[Spiffor]

It is not a fatality to have underpaid janitors. Actually, it's rather surprising our societies do not rewardthose who do this painful job (in the future, janitors will be overpaid )

[Giant_Squid]

Well, I think you need to clarify what you mean by "society". Tribes and other nontechnologically advanced groups do just fine without lower classes. I would say better questions would be something like whether an technologically advanced society could exist without a lower class or whether there could be a form of capitalism that did not involve a lower class.

In any case, my answer would be no. As long as there are fewer resources than people who want them, there's going to either be the 'strong' people taking the resources or some allocation board with all the power allocating the resources, both of which involve upper classes. If people stopped wanting stuff, or if a magical resource generator appeared, the problem could be solved, but neither of those seem likely.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If you're doing a research paper, you light want to define the terms before beginning your analysis. I thought you wanted information, but I can give you opinions in form of one liners if that's what you really want

Thanks, I guess that is good.

BTW, one-liners suck. So do all of you who write them up.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
Well, I think you need to clarify what you mean by "society". Tribes and other nontechnologically advanced groups do just fine without lower classes. I would say better questions would be something like whether an technologically advanced society could exist without a lower class or whether there could be a form of capitalism that did not involve a lower class.

Well, since you'd like me to define it, yes, I do mean a 'technologically advanced' society. Capitalistic may be too restricting, since that may not always be true (and hasn't been in the past... there were still lower classes in the USSR, etc.).

In any case, my answer would be no. As long as there are fewer resources than people who want them, there's going to either be the 'strong' people taking the resources or some allocation board with all the power allocating the resources, both of which involve upper classes. If people stopped wanting stuff, or if a magical resource generator appeared, the problem could be solved, but neither of those seem likely.

The main reason economics work at all is because there's more demand than supply. As you point out, the instant there's 'enough' for everyone, things will collapse economically and subsequently, socially and politically as well.

[Master Zen]

From an economic standpoint there is a distinction of class according to job structure and the level of capital intensiveness. That is, certain jobs (like lawn mowing) have lower pays and people who work these jobs can be oconsidered a "lower class". Of course, if there were automatic lawn mowers then that types of jobs will not exist and those people will be unemployed, a far worse situation (hence the logic of eliminating the minimum wage)

It is interesting to imagine a nation without a "lower class" since there are so many low-paying jobs which are needed for society to function and SOMEONE would need to do them until there is an equivalent machine which could replace them.

In that sense, society DOES need a lower class. However, to be fair, society also needs to give out the opportunity for everyone to obtain the education necessary so that they do not remain in this lower class. It's no sin that a lower class exist, but it is a sin that there's no chance for these people to aspire to a higher place in society.

[Shi Huangdi]

As Spiffor showed, defining exactly what is a lower class can be difficult. There are certain low status jobs, such as plumber or garbage collector, that mught pay well but not have much societal prestige. OTOH there are certain jobs such as teachers where the prestige is high but the pay is not.

[Jon Shafer]

Shi, generally what I mean is the former occupation-type that you mentioned. Being a teacher is nothing that could be looked down upon by society (well, in general), while I doubt many people would see a janitor or garbage man on the same level as a NASA scientist.

Originally posted by Master Zen
From an economic standpoint there is a distinction of class according to job structure and the level of capital intensiveness. That is, certain jobs (like lawn mowing) have lower pays and people who work these jobs can be oconsidered a "lower class". Of course, if there were automatic lawn mowers then that types of jobs will not exist and those people will be unemployed, a far worse situation (hence the logic of eliminating the minimum wage)

It is interesting to imagine a nation without a "lower class" since there are so many low-paying jobs which are needed for society to function and SOMEONE would need to do them until there is an equivalent machine which could replace them.

In that sense, society DOES need a lower class. However, to be fair, society also needs to give out the opportunity for everyone to obtain the education necessary so that they do not remain in this lower class. It's no sin that a lower class exist, but it is a sin that there's no chance for these people to aspire to a higher place in society.

Generally, this is my viewpoint as well. The only thing that I disagree with is your final statement. As cruel or unjust as it may sound, I would much prefer to have people in the 'lower class' than society and the modern world economy as we know it collapse. Selfish or cynnical? Perhaps, but maybe that's just the nature of those 'higher up' on the chain of society. I personally would rather not go back to the ages where class social and economic systems did not exist (i.e. back to the times of hunter-gathering in small communities ).

[Dis]

I misread the topic.

In any case some people just lack the necessary skills and brainpower to do anything meaningful with their lives. Unless we have some magical way of supporting these people, then they will have to work for a living. If we can't find anything for them to do- then who will support them?

[Oerdin]

If there is no lower class then who is going to make my garden salad? They can't honestly expect me to get off my fat ass...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Trip
Shi, generally what I mean is the former occupation-type that you mentioned. Being a teacher is nothing that could be looked down upon by society (well, in general), while I doubt many people would see a janitor or garbage man on the same level as a NASA scientist.

Social prestige is an attribute of a society. For example, in anicent China, mandarians were of the highest status and merchants were of the lowest. Some other societies regarded warriors as the highest.

Even in a Western society, how the various professions rank with each other is a matter of great controvery.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
As Spiffor showed, defining exactly what is a lower class can be difficult. There are certain low status jobs, such as plumber or garbage collector, that mught pay well but not have much societal prestige. OTOH there are certain jobs such as teachers where the prestige is high but the pay is not.

Evidently you haven't dealt with plumbers much.
My plumber is delivered to the job in a Silver Shadow.

[Inverse Icarus]

in capitialism, yes.

when one has more another has less.

[Zero]

Does lower class have to be human?

We can hire space monkeys to do our labor. Go space monkey go!

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Calc II
Does lower class have to be human?

We can hire space monkeys to do our labor. Go space monkey go!

first the mexicans, now the space monkies?

[kidding, i assure you. i have no problem with people comming to america to work. it's when they come to blow sh*t up that i flip out]

[Dauphin]

I think the question assumes things the wrong way round.

Society doesn't need a lowers class, a lower class is a consequence of a society. A ladder always has a bottom rung.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Trip

Generally, this is my viewpoint as well. The only thing that I disagree with is your final statement. As cruel or unjust as it may sound, I would much prefer to have people in the 'lower class' than society and the modern world economy as we know it collapse. Selfish or cynnical? Perhaps, but maybe that's just the nature of those 'higher up' on the chain of society. I personally would rather not go back to the ages where class social and economic systems did not exist (i.e. back to the times of hunter-gathering in small communities ).

Don't worry, social classes will always exist for one simple reason which is not economic: human capacity. Not everyone is born equal in the sense that some are smarter/stronger/etc. than others and thus will be more or less apt to fill in a certain role. The ideal society is that in which people can exploit their own personal capacity to its fullest, and those who don't end up at the bottom. There are thousands, millions, of mediocre people out there...