Financial Samurai had an interesting post recently asking if rich and powerful people are trying to keep the middle class down. After reading the comments, I was shocked to find that most people said “of course not!” and only a few hesitantly suggested “maybe,” mainly pointing out that the rich want to keep their circles exclusive. It’s clear to me that they definitely want to keep the poor down. This might be more apparent in places like Guatemala.

Let’s consider a decent minimum wage and good work ethics. How could anyone afford full-time staff or build a mansion if labor was expensive? More importantly, how could companies provide the benefits that sustain a luxurious lifestyle if their workers earned double?

Less money in your pocket means giving workers the freedom to work less, since they make more. This means they might not work for you much longer, jeopardizing your company and leisurely lifestyle. If you’ve read my post about the lifestyle of the rich in Guatemala, you’ll know they live far better than the average U.S. millionaire, mainly thanks to cheap labor. An upper-middle-class family can afford a maid, a nanny, a driver, a handyman, and even bodyguards if needed. The wife can enjoy daily salon visits, and the husband’s car gets washed every morning—all for under $1,500 a month. Naturally, you wouldn’t want your maid to get rich!

I had a well-paying job and quickly figured out how to save money for financial independence, allowing me to quit my job at 29. Since then, I’ve made more money from passive income sources like rental properties and the stock market, without contributing anything tangible to the economy. If everyone lived like me, we’d all be starving. Poor people are the backbone of the economy.

Another example from Guatemala involves coffee farm workers, who used to be paid in tokens valid only at the farm’s shop, owned by the boss. Most of the money paid to them ended up back in the boss’s pocket. They could exchange tokens for real money, but barely anything was left after basic expenses, making this system almost like slavery. Even today, the average low-class worker isn’t much better off.

Poor people play the lottery, gamble, drink alcohol, and smoke cigarettes—habits that keep them needing jobs. They’re offered easy credit and enticed by advertisements for things they can’t afford, trapping them in long-term payment plans. They buy the products they help make, profiting the rich. They also need to support their families, and their kids want expensive gadgets and clothes. A reader once wondered why a single-income family got by fine in the 1950s, while a dual-income family struggles today—it’s because we desire so much we can’t afford.

Sam questions why there’s a child tax credit for low-income families. In my view, encouraging people to have children ultimately benefits society by creating future workers who will pay taxes, fund pensions, and produce goods. The $1,000 tax credit is a wise investment because those kids will likely end up in debt for education, credit cards, and other loans, generating significant interest revenue.

The rich need middle-class workers willing to take any job at any pay. Guatemala’s elite often compete to see who has the biggest yacht, the largest homes, or the most extravagant weddings. However, there are also low-profile millionaires who operate in the background, buying large plots of public land, building housing with government incentives, and cashing in on public offerings. They too are reluctant to let new people into their exclusive circle.

In conclusion, I believe the rich don’t want the low and middle classes to improve their situations, not because they want to hoard wealth, but because they need an affordable and compliant workforce. They may tolerate the occasional ambitious individual, but they don’t want the idea to spread that it’s possible to rise above, as this would force them to work harder themselves.

What are your thoughts?