One of the priviledges that being wealthy brings is the practice of paying other people to do stuff that you don’t want to do. It is a common perk of being rich to have people, who are “lower in standing than you”, to wait upon you. We see the world of the upper class in shows like Downton Abby where the wealthy lords are waited upon by an army of servants who work for minimal wages and spend their lives toiling while the elite attend dinner parties and dress for afternoon tea. It is an interesting dilemma to those who come from humble beginnings, once they have money, to have people wait on them as they were once the ones doing the serving. The formerly “poor” feel uncomfortable in that situation, whereas people who always had money think nothing of it. The question I have is, 

“Is this morally appropriate”? 

Is it morally correct to have a society where the rich are waited upon by the poor? Well, in a sense, it might be the wrong question. The right question might be,

“Are the people waiting upon the wealthy doing it by choice?

That is one of the fundamental questions. If they were there because they had no other choice, then the situation is flirting with indentured servitude which basically amounts to slavery. This should never happen and I could never support a system that perpetuates that. However, if someone’s vocation is a choice, based on interest, aptitude or ambition (or lack thereof) then is is perfectly acceptable and I am all for it. The problem then becomes, whether the elite or the “help” are aware of the “choice” and are willing to accept either lifestyle as an option (or consequence) , based on merit.

This class struggle is apparent in all of modern society. The wealthy get poor people to build things, move things, and clean things that they don’t want to do themselves. Often, the poor work much harder than the rich and yet, make a lot less money. So is this an individual problem or a systemic problem?

The hard core capitalists would suggest that it is an individual problem. They believe that everyone has the opportunity to make something of themselves in a free society and the only roadblock is ambition or lack thereof. They are not wrong. We live in a world that has more opportunity than ever before in human history. We are truly blessed. 

But the other side of this argument is that not everyone is starting from the same place. Some people’s struggles are excessive. People who are starting from nothing or live in a community that is less than safe do not have the same opportunity as someone who has a well constructed support system. The fact that there are vast multitudes of people barely getting by is definitely a systemic issue.

If we all have a common starting point, the definition of “poor” becomes something new altogether. I believe there will always be some sort of “class” system - but it can, and should, evolve as we become more enlightened. There is a very real need for us, as humans, to be compensated for our efforts. This is as it should be. We should also try to define our contributions in the context of thier value to society as a whole. If our product or service is rare or extremely hard to reproduce, it therefore should have a higher value than something that is fairly abundant. This is supply and demand. However, we need to place a certain base value on human beings in general and derive a formula to make sure that everyone has basic survival available to them at a minimum. This would allow everyone to have a foundation of safety. If people feel safe, they are far more likely to make decisions that contribute to society than not.

Now I agree that there are still a good many crappy jobs out there and that someone has to do them. I am not naive enough to think that everyone is cut out to do all things. Everyone has a different level of intelligence, strength, creativity, and aptitude. That is what makes mankind so diverse and amazing. We all bring something unique to the table. There are people who like to think for a living and others that like to use their hands. Some people need to express themselves, while others just like to see a job well-done. That is great. We hope that everyone has the opportunity to find meaningful work that allows them to earn a living (at a minimum) and fullfill their purpose (in a perfect scenario). 

People’s differences aside, we should be careful not to demean any particular walk of life based on its relative “hardness” compared to any another vocation. Jobs that require a unique skillset or a rare amount of brainpower should be compensated as such, as they are in short supply and tend to solve big problems. This is perfectly natural. 

Work that “anyone can do” is compensated poorly because, as a commodity, there are many people who can do that job. However, there is some value in a person doing an “easy” job well, and with enthusiasm. We are dealing with people after all. The soft skills of camaraderie and attitude do have a value. If you don’t care about that, hire a robot. 

So is it morally OK to have “poor” people working for the “rich”?

Absolutely

But we need to remember that everyone deserves respect, dignity and a minimum standard of living. Everyone deserves a common starting point and help, guidance and resources if they ask for it. Equal opportunity should be available to everyone. 

The smart, creative and ambitious deserve to have their gifts rewarded by contributing to the world. But let’s not live by “survival of the fittest”. Let’s live by “survival for everyone” AND “To the victor goes the spoils”

My new book “We Can Save the World..but there’s no money in it” is available now. I go into this subject in great depth and make the argument that there is a system of capitalism where we can all win. Shake up the status quo and check it out.