What are “poor people’s problems”? Do such problems go away simply by not having poor people? In that case, do you solve the first order problems, or try to sol

What are “poor people’s problems”? Do such problems go away simply by not having poor people? In that case, do you solve the first order problems, or try to solve not having the poor? There is a general correlation between a wide range of malignancies, including lower educational attainment (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0141192950210404 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/014119295021...) and lower life expectancy (https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/2/115.short https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/2/115.short). While it's plausible that these problems could be addressed by radically revising the structure of society (for example, if parents could not influence the educational institutions attended by their offspring, educational outcomes might be much more equal), the necessary revisions don't seem plausible in most Western societies as currently constituted. Thus, simply reducing gross inequality seems like a reasonable suggestion. Would you try to differentiate the under-moneyed from the under-inspired? Are their problems the same? No. Who cares, anyway? If you want to use “markets”, how do you avoid Idiocracy? The existence of the film Idiocracy is not an argument for believing that such a society is a plausible or likely outcome of massive redistribution.