Which bottom? The bottom that works full time? The bottom that has some level of employment? The bottom that has no interest in employment? The bottom that does not do anything at all except exist? The bottom that is antagonistic to remainder of society?

If you are not specific, then you do not have a position.

Do the other half of the if-by-whiskey

I don't think I really hide my stance on this website.

You might remember a few.

But nonetheless, the specifics always matter. While you might think society is more about the feels, there's a lot of reals that guide people too.

Avoiding the specifics is probably fruitful, but you will not convince me without it.

In USA, Bottom means the people who lack food, shelter, housing, health care, and other social services that are available to median income people in a comparably affluent Western country.

No idea what that means, it seems you sidestepped my question.

So basically food + all of the things that are expensive and greatly outpace inflation.

You can’t have any kind of democracy with that kind of wealth inequality. There’s more to society than just offering subsistence to the common people.

If money was all that it's about, I would agree. Unfortunately, money can be transferred into power.

Personally not sure I find one Bezos to be worth much.

Point to a billionaire and I’ll show you a coddled idiot who couldn’t grow their own food.

The top, if there must be one, should be the people wearing out their bodies to make the roads and grow the food.

Office workers munging numbers around is not worth much to the real economy that requires construction and production of real things.

Why should a rich person have the ability to burn more fossil fuels?

Nah we need a more scientific method for economics. Perhaps constraints built on how much a lifestyle pollutes?