Beggars line the streets of bustling cities, insults and glares raining down upon them more often than spare change from the pockets of the upper classes. Their plight is frequently documented and explored in the various newspapers, drives to aid the poor and assist the needy are frequently implemented within area churches and humanitarian organizations, and sacks of cans for feeding the hungry appear at food banks for redistribution to the unfortunate. Their battles have always been the sorties of politicians: welfare, childcare, education, low-income discounts, and tax relief. Yet, in all efforts to save the lower class from certain doom, society misses out on one important point: the poor are not only a reality, but a requirement, of a properly-operating capitalist economy. Capitalism, by its virtues and tenants, requires the existence of a poor lower class. An attempt to eliminate their existence from society only further damages the economy and, therefore, the other classes.

Capitalism rises from the survival of the species, a principle as old as life itself. The goal: to survive. The better an organism can survive, the more likely it is to reproduce, furthering its species and increasing the population. This simple principle became more complicated over time as conscious, self-aware, free-willed species came into being. Upon the arrival of the homo genus, the goal became a tiered existence. The pursuit was the same but there was now a sense of a quality of survival, versus simply surviving in any manner possible. This quantification of different levels of the "standard of living" is what sparked the first economies to be formed. Not only had the caveman invented the wheel, but also by having a useful tool, he was able to raise his level of living over that of his neighbor. Upon the neighbor wanting an experience of this same level of living, a trade was made, and economics sprung into existence.

The case is not always material, of course. Benefits to the life of a species can be found in many different forms -- psychological, physiological, sociological, and more. The requirement for benefit to exist is the presence of a differing level of experience by an outside party. Internal benefits, while good to the owner, are only a visible benefit if an outside party can observe the effects. A ratty old blanket may be the prized possession of one but is worthless in the eyes of another. However, if the blanket is the source of stress relief for the owner, this indirect benefit may be observable and the blanket still coveted.

Ensuring the regular transmission of benefits between people is the purpose of a properly functioning economy. This transfer of benefits exists not only for the maintenance and propagation of the species, but for the continued improvement or maintenance of a particular style of living. Because of the flexibility and innovativeness of the human race, many different schemes of working economies have come to bear over the centuries. Capitalism has been explained, revised, iterated, and reformed in many different manners within the universities and in the practice of governments and countries; however, the basic tenants of this economic form have changed little, based such as they are in the existence of life itself.

These basic principles are what surface on a daily basis in the dealings with the effects of an economy on a society that contains moralistic and ethical value systems. When the values and beliefs of the people in a society reach out and touch the economic structure, strange things sometimes occur. In the case of capitalism, many things clash; capitalism in and of itself -- as a pure economic structure and theory -- does not contain non-beneficial moral and ethical values. Values that do not directly contribute to the increase or reduction of wealth of the individual or of the whole have no place within a capitalist structure.

This lack of values can be attributed to the roots of the theory itself. As discussed before, since the root of capitalism is the survival of the individual and, therefore, the species as a whole, the values embedded within the structure must be derived from that original purpose. The leopard knows no morals or ethics when stalking prey upon the dusty plains of Africa; the feelings of the wildebeest as it is pulled to the ground matters little to the predator; it is simply looking to fill its belly and continue living. Thus do the inner workings of capitalism run -- the plight of the poor, the pains of the homeless, the grief of the jilted matter little to the engine of economy.

Capitalism, however, goes beyond the basic urge to maintain life at a certain level. It hinges upon the greed nature of humans to procure more than the bare necessities. To paraphrase the theory: Capitalism's main principle is that the one with the most toys wins. Simple survival is no longer enough; success becomes the procurement of more benefits than one requires -- infinitely. An individual can strive towards a higher benefit if one can be observed or imagined (fantastical benefits can be conceived, though rarely do they hold up in the long run).

Thus, in all aspects of the economy, there will naturally be the "haves" and the "have-nots" -- people who possess benefits that others do not. In pure implementation of the theory, there would be a lack of classes within a capitalist economy, as each person would strive upwards or fall downwards in the total accumulation of benefits. However, society partitions itself into groups of a particular level of benefit -- classes -- in which the members consider themselves of a like level of existence, striving towards a higher existence.

In an exchange of benefits on the individual level, one receives a benefit from another, perhaps in exchange of benefit. Often this exchange of benefit is even -- both parties receive equal reward for the exchange in their own eyes. Modern economic theory states that this is almost always the case. However, if we add in the anonymous third party to the transaction, we may see a change. The third party observes the transaction between the two individuals and can make a determination on whether benefit was equal or not. Often in this case, an imbalance will be observed -- someone clearly came out on top in the transaction. The third party can then react to the transaction with one of its own, taking advantage of the observed, and increasing the chance that his transaction will result in more benefit for him than the other. This is on a micro level, but when moved to a macro level of observation, larger groups of people can be seen to come out ahead in transactions versus another group. Continue to back away from the scene and the groups become larger and less specific until you reach the classing of a society as a whole. Thus it can be said that the middle class receives more benefit from transactions with the lower class, and the upper class receives the greater of benefits in transactions with both classes below it. Thus does the class system maintain itself and make transitions between classes difficult and expensive.

The poor then exist as the foundation to this classed society. In a pure capitalist society, the poor would be ill defined as the class boundaries would be non-existent and the "poor" would simply be an arbitrary name for a particular range of wealth. However, since society delineates in classes, the poor are an easily labeled lowest-section of the population. Regardless of how they are classed, the poor exist as the foundation of this ladder of success, for without it, the ladder cannot exist. Benefits must be pushed upwards from the bottom -- the top members have no way to generate benefits purely, they are beholden to the lower classes to provide them. Such is the description of the upper classes as people through which benefits are consumed but not produced.

How about a slow change, a methodical means of replacing the lower class with middle class people by elevating small groups or individuals in their lifestyles? The problem with the slow approach is that you will end up with one of two situations: One, by helping some individuals and not others, you are only shifting places in the structure. For each person elevated in class, one will drop down to fill its place. This is because benefits are not infinite -- a benefit given to one is essentially withheld from another. An analogy can be made of a tank of rubber balls. Move one ball to the top of the pile and another will lower itself to take its place.

Two, you will end up with an unbalanced society of a smaller lower class than what the society needs to survive. You have then created an unstable situation like above -- the building will eventually shift and fix itself (possibly to the detriment of many). The size of the classes is determined by what the economy as a whole can support. Fiddling with these sizes either unbalances the economy in dangerous ways or forces a mass rearrangement of people's places within the system.

One might then claim that the pursuit to help the poor and aid the needy is without merit at all; one should leave the poor to do their job in the class system and let society and the economy run at its optimum. This is an option, of course, but the drive to assist the lower class is not completely without merit, depending on the implementation. In our previous example, when a member of the society is aided and caused to rise in the system, another will drop to take its place, due to the lack of benefit received. However, the net effect of this type of assistance is that the level which is considered "lower class" is raised -- drops from classes above usually do not result in the person going to the lowest level of their class, usually they are at the top of their class. Thus, after much slow, methodical assistance of the lowest class, their level of subsistence will rise. As the lowest class rises in benefit, so must the upper classes rise in their level of benefit as well. Remember, benefits are always pushed upwards in the chain of consumption.

The poor in the United States of America are significantly different than the poor of other countries, for instance, many of those of Africa. The level of benefit that the poor experience in the USA is significantly higher than the poor in these countries and they would often be considered quite rich in such a nation. Thus the American upper class is defined much higher due to the lower class being higher, benefiting those higher up.

These are the requirements of poverty, that they occupy the lower section of a properly functioning capitalist society as the foundations upon which the upper classes can derive benefit. Attempts to "fix" the problem of the poor only serve to raise the level of benefit for the other classes; they are not a solution to the "problem". Thus will politicians continue to pontificate and push for laws, regulations, and benefits for the lower classes because, in reality, they are only benefiting their class and the classes theirs is built upon. Survival of the fittest comes around again in a whole new, more sophisticated method of stepping on heads to stand higher than anyone else. Remember, the one with the most toys wins.