I honestly don't think there is a solution here. There will always be a large percentage of the population that don't have the motivation or capacity to learn the skills required to get "good jobs". Unless top earners are willing to sacrifice (tax reform, charity, etc), which is extremely unlikely given human nature, others will need to scrape by with low paying menial jobs. That's how it's always been.
The top earners are the heirs who collect dividends, interest and rent - the rentiers in documentaries like Born Rich. They are unwilling to work, as the real hourly wage has sank in the US since the early 1970s, they have reaped all the benefit.
Far below them is a work force which is split in different skill levels. Only a handful of top school STEM majors graduate every year, then there are the rest.
Since in your universe larger social analysis is excluded, the answer comes down to each individual - their motivation and such.
This bears no relation to reality. The overwhelming majority of the rich in Western countries are members of the executive or professional class or entrepreneurs who work for their money.
> The rich different from you and me. … today’s super-rich are also different from yesterday’s: more hardworking and meritocratic, but less connected to the nations that granted them opportunity—and the countrymen they are leaving ever further behind. … Our light-speed, globally connected economy has led to the rise of a new super-elite that consists, to a notable degree, of first- and second-generation wealth. Its members are hardworking, highly educated, jet-setting meritocrats who feel they are the deserving winners of a tough, worldwide economic competition.
> > Have the idle rich replaced the working rich at the top of the U.S. income distribution? Using tax data linking 11 million firms to their owners, this paper finds that entrepreneurs who actively manage their firms are key for top income inequality. Most top income is non-wage income, a primary source of which is private business profit. These profits accrue to working-age owners of closely-held, mid-market firms in skill-intensive industries. Private business profit falls by three-quarters after owner retirement or premature death. Classifying three-quarters of private business profit as human capital income, we find that most top earners are working rich: they derive most of their income from human capital, not physical or financial capital. The human capital income of private business owners exceeds top wage income and top public equity income. Growth in private business profit is explained by both rising productivity and a rising share of value added accruing to owners.
The first link is shot through with holes, I would not know where to start. The Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances says otherwise.
The second link is obvious on the face of it - in a country with 325 million people, if you look at 11 million firms, the majority are not run by 1%ers. The data parameters make the outcome a foregone conclusion. Of course the owner of the median firm out of 11 million will be more middle class than the heirs who own a lot of stock in Walmart.
There are things they can do. We have come to accept that e.g. google does not offer support for their products from real people, however they could invest their enormous profits to hiring thousands of people to do that. Not only will they support the "working class" , as many kinds of businesses actively do (e.g. retail), but getting low-skills people doing menial jobs in touch with technology gives them a free education along with such a job. This is true for almost every major tech company who are being stingy with their hiring, even though they are way past the lean stage of a startup and into uber-rich territory.
