Is poverty necessary?

In the societies, there are many different economical, political, civil status. How had they been occured? It’d became fact in a long while. The status and the important elements that have an important role on people’s life have been changed according to conditions of periods of the states. Nowadays, it’s very clear that there is a great difference between people because of the money. For example, in old periods, land is the most effective property on determining the status of people. Then, it had been changed. Commerce, technology and money get the influential role. People who have more money than the others, are start to do whatever they want. All luxury life conditions are began to see the normal rights of rich people. Thus, the big cliff has been occured between rich and poor people.
A common idea is that poverty is necessary because if there is no poor people, riches has no mean. Also, when the poverty is necessary for encouraging people to work more according to the common idea. Because when all people have same status in monetary, then everyone works until a definite level. There can’t be any rivalry and development. Maybe, the idea logical with some points of it. Especially, in market economy, rivalry is very effective to produce more new products for entrepreneur. However, it should be argued that some people continue to live in a big poverty. They can’t use their rights because of the lack of money. When someone is getting splendid life conditions and consume lots of things in an insensitive way, someone can’t find basic needs for living and dies. Is it really logical? Surely, a lot of developments has been materialized owing to rivalry. Well then, can everyone benefit from that developments in an equal way? The answer is so clear that because of the monetary differences between people, someone has been obliged to live with primitive conditions. In this case, reforms can’t reach their all aims. A real improvement can be proved by benefitting from all people in a community and serving equally. If a state is being administered by a constitution then this mean is that everyone is equal and everyone has same rights. Money shouldn’t be a indicator to have precedence for someone.
I’m not defending that all people should have same status in a community. Certainly, there should be some parts of works. For instance, in companies, everyone can’t be the director. Someone should be labourer because it’s necessary on producing products. But the working status should be organized as preventing the big differences between people. People should take the response of their labour. The system should work with giving all necessary services to everyone without considering their working status. When there are so many differences between people’s salaries, it causes confusions, revolts, restless, unequalities; not an encouring to work more according to me. Moreover, poverty mostly causes thievery, illegal actions etc. If a person has no money, he/she has to work to live. Then, surely working and gaining money has the priority in the life of that person. So, how can those people educate themselves? How can they adapt developments actually? How can they have been conscious of their rights and responsibilities as a citizen? I think, we can’t say that improvements can be realized without educating all citizens in a state.
In conclusion, in spite of the fact that some of logical justification of the idea about the necessary of the poverty, I think, it has many damages on people too. An actual equality as monetary may not be supplied but this situation shouldn’t get a dimension which has been given the superiority to people who have much more money.