It’s interesting that you argue this line of thought; it’s the same as the logic of the US gov’t after it invaded Cuba in 1898. The US raised the levels of healthcare and sanitation on the island in order to maintain a viable workforce to exploit (see the “Platt Amendment”)….

Thus, your argument is not only definitely achievable, but it used to be the standard line of thought in pre-globalized capitalism… The workers were still economically and physically exploited, but other factors of living-standards did improve for some of the island.

On the other hand, social theorist Paulo Freire would call such improvements “false-charity”–just something to keep in mind…

The point being, if you formulate a more ethical means of capturing wealth, other than corporations, then you’ve got your answer, short of that, dissent and protest will offer minor adjustments to the current system, but a real “Copernican” revolution in economic reality will come only when an alternative to corporatism is both formulated and accepted by states.

However, there are many people in our society who truly do hate the poor. They are people who do not want to be reminded of the existence of poverty. They want it hidden. They say “we don’t want any homeless in our city — we don’t want to look at them — send them elsewhere.” Do you know that New York City has offered a free airplane ticket to any homeless person who is willing to move elsewhere? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29oneway.html )

And when you said

“To hell with anyone who thinks it’s part and parcel to American Capitalism,”

you are saying to hell with me. Because I think the perpetuation of poverty is inherent in our American version of capitalism. And that’s one of the reasons that I don’t want “American capitalism” to continue. I want a very different economic system, though I haven’t entirely figured out what it is. Corporations lobby against any government measures that would substantially reduce unemployment, because the corporations like having high unemployment. When there is high unemployment, then there are plenty of people lined up to replace each employee, and that makes it easy to cut wages and benefits, or even to replace all the full time employees with temps who get one fourth the salary and no benefits. It’s rather short-sighted of the corporations — after all, if the middle class disappears, then there is no one left to buy their products. And, by the way, the middle class IS rapidly disappearing. See http://www.alternet.org/workplace/144388/. Soon you and I will be among the poor.

You wrote “That man or woman is going to need to learn to fish differently maybe two or three times in their life.” Actually, it’s going to be a lot more than two or three times. The change is accelerating.

You wrote “I honestly think that most corporations will be in favor of this improvement of the American workforce.” That doesn’t make much sense to me. That’s like saying most fish will be in favor of humans inventing the airplane.

You are concerned with whether “America will not compete with China or elsewhere,” as though competition between nations were our prime motivating force — as though rooting for the home team and waving its flag were the way to get people to do things. I think that is very shortsighted. I think that competition itself is a disease. Our motivation should be, “I want my extended family to do well,” not “I want someone else to do less well than my people.” Cooperation is better than competition. If it’s competition you want, let’s compete against the past; let’s try to make the future better than the past. Better for all of us, together. The USA together with the Chinese.