Just like some companies make decisions for the benefit of the next quarter, rather than the next 5 years. If you are able to make a decision that increases near term metrics, at the expense of some other metric you aren't even paying attention to (like making poor people poorer) I can see that happening independently thousands of times a day.

Take payday loans, more commonly used by people with a lower socio-economic standing. They aren't there to create an underclass, they are there to provide a service (loans) at a cost that matches the risk (ignoring the conversation about the cost not matching the risk due to predatory loans). But if decisions are made to increase profit from payday loans, a natural consequence is that the underclass is going to be made more of an underclass.

This is just one example, and it's clearly got some issues. I have no problem imagining many other decisions that will help create an underclass. Maybe the impact is 2 or 5 steps removed, but each one makes a difference, and leads to in aggregate "the rich work to keep the poor, poor".

But what do I know. I'm a developer who took one econ course.

There's plenty of historical evidence for this. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/28/commen...

The counterargument is that the massive increases in wealth inequality since the 50s - a time when the average single wage earner could afford a relatively secure lifestyle - "just happened", which is obviously rather implausible.

Warren Buffet

It's not that implausible. It's the effect of technology - not just automation / computers (only since 90s or something) but also before, we had information technology - ever since the telegraph was invented. In simple terms, it enables ever-increasing scale of human cooperation, bigger countries, bigger companies etc. so the "winners" (smartest, most experienced, most educated, most corrupt, most sociopathic, most networked, or simply those with a better starting point) win ever more, at a bigger scale.

I also wouldn't think a conspiracy is necessary. Just lobby to write tax, tariff, and property laws out in the open that benefit one class of people/industry more than another.

1 of 5 children of John D Rockefeller (richest man in history) died at 13 months. In the past 130 years, child mortality has decreased massively in the developed world. If that's not "real" or "satisfying" and the only achievement that truly fulfils you is beating other people, that's a fairly sad life to live.

Also the experiment of being given the choice of either getting nothing or getting $X and giving their worst enemy 2*$X. Small groups often compete against each other, "keeping up with the Joneses", and while it is a sort of hedonistic treadmill, it's an easy way to gain satiety.

Equally there’s the possibility of some of the rich not really understanding this or not buying into this philosophy- look at some of the countries with increasing inequality and a disappearing middle class and you’ll always find some lobbying against spending money on services - including things like education which serve as an economic common good and which drive the economy over the long term.

If rich people are trying to maximize absolute societal wealth, you'd be right.

However, if they're trying to maximize absolute individual wealth, then they have plenty of incentive to exploit people. Labor history is full of this. If my workers aren't my customers and the choice is between putting a dollar in my pocket or a dollar in theirs, then a wealth-maximizer is going to take the dollar every time. Does that mean less global wealth? Very often. Does an individual absolute wealth maximizer care? Not at all.

People, though, are primates. Dominance hierarchies are part of our evolutionary history. We don't just care about absolute wealth. We care about social status. For many, power is its own end. Power and its signifiers. E.g., positional goods are hugely appealing to some people. (As a great historical example, consider the Shakespeare-style lace ruff collar. It was the height of fashion when it was handmade. As soon as machine-made lace became possible, they went out of fashion because they no longer reliably indicated wealth.) For these people, what matters is individual relative wealth.

For some people, yes, the exact desired outcome is them being on top and everybody else well down below. Does that mean they are less absolutely wealthy? Sure. Do they care? No. For evidence, just look at the historically enormous number of kings, dukes, warlords, etc, etc. Most of the world for most of history has been run with approaches that are miles off "greatest (economic) good for the greatest number". Conspiracy is entirely unnecessary to explain that, just individuals seeking social dominance by any means that come to hand.

Sign me up.

Now, I'm not arguing that it _should_ or has to be this way. I'm just highlighting the usual arguments made when discussing why the rich may conspire to keep some people poor.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/05/03/607996811/worker-shortage-hur...

Parliament and nobility literally got together to a) ban unionisation b) fix wages at an unfairly low level c) punish anyone who refused to work at the wages that were fixed below market d) refused to work for an employer who treated him unfairly.

And that cycle has repeated itself all the way through to the 21st Century (Bay View Massacre, etc)

IF you don't think the wealthy actively work to suppress the working classes indirectly or directly, you are truly naive.

Remember revolutions ae carried out by the middle class.