Actually, this is an interesting topic that's been tumbling about economic circles for quite some time. When all is said and done, however, there's no real necessity for there to be poor people in a capitalism at all, if labor supply is willing to match labor demand.
Well, I'm not a professional economist, just a student who's trying to get into the field now coming out of the military, but here's what I see.
There has to be poor in order for there to be rich. Otherwise, everyone would be making the same, and that doesn't work. Now, poverty can be eradicated- and should be- since it's a positive externality. Allowing the poor to starve usually leads to the poor becoming violent, which is expensive to put down.
Every company, every entrepeneur, every venture seeks to grow; growth requires capital, and human labor is capital as well. Growth creates jobs, requires skill, and requires specialization to go with it. As long as the labor pool has access and mobility to acquire the specialization and skills required to fit the demand, then unemployment will drop: Someone sees a job and they then take it.
Of course, that all plays into mobility as a facilitating factor in achieving this fluid labor market. Stops exist on a variety levels, from the intrapersonal, mental level of hesitance or self doubt to even such things as cultural constraints or fears - 'selling out', if you will. This can lead to a stagnation of labor and cause the labor pool to coagulate, in a sense.
For more about the cultural constraints, by the way, I'd suggest running an Amazon.com search on 'underground economy'. There's been a number of books in recent years about why poor urban neighborhoods refuse to be upwardly mobile.
I believe the opportunity is there to be upwardly mobile. Problem is that there is a segment of society that seeks to create a "rent seeking" atmosphere- generally from the left side of the spectrum, but the right has some of this as well. They tend to make up stories about white privilege or some other sociological bullcrap that is at most a minor factor. Many people seem to not realize that a growing percentage of a larger pie is better then half of a smaller pie. Inequality reduces over time.
One issue that is coming into play is that the safety net is strong enough that people are valuing time over money. With work becoming increasingly specialized, that is not necessarily a bad thing- especially on the unskilled labor end of it.
In an international sense, of course, there's always that consideration of 'exploiting the poor' or 'sweatshop labor'. The fact of the matter is, of course, that while a pound or two US dollars per hour is absolutely miserable pay in England or the United States, many countries have far more impoverished economies and a far lower cost of living; what we would consider to be pitiful pay would pass as middle class employment in some areas.
Is this to say that child labor is an economic feasibility? Well, no, not at all. The irony in such a matter is that the more a nation forces its children to work, the less time they have to adapt for more productive jobs that would grow their economy further. Working for a dollar today will literally cost them thousands in a couple of years. Forfeiting growth will only stagnate their economy on a global scale.
There's also that element of 'trickle down economics' I'm sure that some are likely to point out involving highly productive countries spreading their wealth to poorer nations, but it's all too possible and, in fact, occurs as we speak. China's lucrative relationship with the United States has fueled their economy for the past twenty or thirty years, and India too is vaulting forward with an aggressive modernization plan. The question isn't whether we will continue using their labor, but whether we will be using their engineers, their doctors, and the other collegiate graduates they'll be churning out asking for salaries relative to their lower cost of living.
I wonder, is that "trickle down" or "trickle up" The main increase I believe is due to an increased level of productivity from globalization. That's what raises real wealth. One concern I have about the US is that we may end up with a glut of education without the capacity to use that education. We should expect real slower growth rates relative to the rest of the world- as globalization does by mathematical logic have to produce two forces: the first force being a general upward trend caused by increased efficiency and productivity- the second force being a "regression to the mean" effect caused by factor price equalization.
All in all, though, the jobs are out there, they're vacant, and they're available. Look through online job searches and newspapers - people are willing to hire. The question we should be asking isn't 'why are the rich blind to the poor' but 'why don't the poor look for advancement'.
Wish I had found the job years ago, wouldn't have had to enter the military. I enjoyed my time in, but it's not what I wanted in life. I think I finally found something I enjoy- and am going for that at the moment.
