You don't believe that one can eliminate poverty without eliminating upside for people to reach for? I'm not talking about handouts, necessarily, as a solution to poverty. Education/training, things to provide opportunities to help with economic mobility, and other programs would be applicable.

The economic system needs to change to provide economic mobility. As long as capital and the ability to make capital is out of reach of the poorer classes, then economic mobility really isn't possible.

Expanding education and training will bring us to a higher technological level, and provide prosperity for society, however that won't ensure the working classes will have a 'fair' share. If everyone's income is increased, but the distribution of resources stays the same, the poor will still be poor because costs will simply climb as their income does. Furthermore, every job can be commoditized. When 7/11 jobs are automated, then the next lowest class could be programmers. If there are too many programmers, wages will be run down to the level of today's 7/11 workers. Society as a whole may be more advanced, but that won't prevent people from becoming indentured workers. Just as today we are more advanced than 1960, but it's harder for the lower classes to get by.

The distribution is the problem, poverty is a symptom.

I don't think you have your economic mental model quite right - costs don't increase like that unless the cost of production increases to match, which only really happens with goods manufactured domestically where labor accounts for most of the cost. Since we have a global trade system, it is possible to have a very skewed distribution and have even the poorest be quite comfortably well off, if the country is very rich. As the third world gets wealthier, though, that might cause rising goods prices, as they demand higher wages. But that's not related to the distribution of wealth within one country.

And you don't really need your own monetary capital to have economic mobility - for the poor, time and expertise is the capital. Good public education increases that expertise, and is one of the best ways to provide economic mobility. Also, if more money is necessary than one can save up, there are always small business loans from banks.

> costs don't increase like that unless the cost of production increases to match, which only really happens with goods manufactured domestically where labor accounts for most of the cost.

Don't forget about transportation costs, retailing costs, etc... Most of the 'poor' are working poor, working in warehouses, restaurants, retail stores, and other minimum wage jobs. If you bring up the wage floor, everything gets more expensive (even stuff bought at Walmart) and that hits the poor, reducing their gains (however if it's enough to reduce inequality, they'll gain something, however small).

> And you don't really need your own monetary capital to have economic mobility - for the poor, time and expertise is the capital. Good public education increases that expertise, and is one of the best ways to provide economic mobility. Also, if more money is necessary than one can save up, there are always small business loans from banks.

Economic mobility only exists as long as higher quality jobs remain unfilled. The US is more educated than ever before, yet inequality has increased since the 1950's. Education certainly brings society to a higher technological level over time, but it's not a given that it reduces poverty or inequality.

This phenomenon has been well documented and can be seen in many developing countries where people are actually over-educated relative to the types of work demanded for economic growth. For example, if a country has no roads or electric grid, many industries cannot develop until that infrastructure is built, meaning there's more demand for construction workers than university graduates.

And of course, the missing piece between education and work that doesn't yet exist is capital. Without capital to develop new industries, you're limited to only the amount of work that is currently demanded, so education will never bring you to a higher equilibrium, it'll simply make the educated person more competitive within the market.

Anyhow, many economists have written entire books (cough Piketty) and papers about inequality and economic growth. In the developing world there are plenty of examples of economies that are stagnant because of inequality. Even within the US' own history, you have examples of high and low inequality, and the resulting economic growth.