Yeah, a year or two. That is a much different situation than the poor are in.
And this is the problem...you think the situation is the same. So do a lot of other well meaning people. They think that the poor are not making the decisions you would make so they must be stupid or not capable of reason somehow. But the fact is, facing hunger in a year is much, much different than facing hunger next week. Having some sort of built up human capital, be it a degree or work experience or connections or whatever is much different than having none of those things to fall back on. Having connections, be it family or friends, that can help you out in a pinch is much different than everyone you know balancing on the razor's edge too.
Missing a payment on your car in a month or two if you lose your job and making uncomfortable decisions is much different than not being able to eat or put gas in your car and leads to much different calculations.
It is the myth that we are all in the same boat that allows us to vilify those stupid poor people who can't just do what needs to be done to get themselves out of their situation.
>in our system even the poor can accumulate savings and wealth, albeit at a slower rate.
Perhaps they can, but at what cost?
>I've seen people making 100k+ spend so foolishly that they are effectively 'pushing for nothing' (zero or negative net assets).
Me too. But you mistake 'spending on consumption (enjoyment of their time)' with working for nothing. That's not nothing -- they are getting value for their money and time. That's not saving but I am talking about being in a situation where you have to transact with someone or lose everything. Very, very different.
> threatening another with imprisonment if they don't remit a significant portion of their income to that class -- are you OK with that?
Yes, because if they are like your friends above and they truly get themselves into trouble, they'd have that guarantee as well.
>professionals are only partially paid based on the profit they generate.
Partially, in this case, makes all of the difference.
> labor demand vs. labor supply, just like everyone else's
Except the poor. Sure their labor is more plentiful and therefore cheaper, but cost of that labor is depressed because their bargaining position, their best alternative to a negotiated agreement, is negative. That is a big weight on the scale.
> it is actually asking them to work for exactly what their labor is worth
Again, it isn't because of the 'or else' chip on the scale. Besides, should we accept jobs in our society that don't pay enough to support the maintenance of the capital it uses? We don't offer to subsidize the cost of ink for a printing press or gas for a logistics company, why should we subsidize the cost of human labor?