George Orwell. Down and out in Paris and London (№ 238281)

There is a feeling of a certain qualitative differences between poor and decent "working" man. Poor - a special tribe of outcasts like thieves and prostitutes. Working "work", and the poor "does not work", as a natural parasite. He that obvious to everyone "earns" their own bread, as it "makes" a bricklayer or a literary critic; it's just an unfortunate excrescence on the body of society, tolerant because of the humanism of our age, but essentially despicable. However, taking a look closer, you will find that a qualitative difference in the extraction means from the poor and a vast number of respectable citizens there. Say the poor don't work. So what does work? The digger works, waving his shovel; the accountant works Itoga numbers; a beggar works by standing in any weather on the street gain thrombophlebitis, chronic bronchitis, etc Craft among other crafts. Useless? Absolutely. But many very respectable professions completely useless. As a representative of a social group often wins, even the beggar in comparison with other: he was honest sellers of patented drugs, nobler owners Sunday papers, courteous dealers-shill - in short, a parasite, at least harmless. From companies it rarely takes more than is required for basic survival, and what's supposed to justify it according to accepted ethical views fully, abundantly pay their torments. I don't think the poor have something that allows them to allocate a separate class of people, or gives most citizens the right to despise them.