@ semck
I suppose you have a point there. There will always be a somewhat fine line between "old" money and "new" money. An NBA star wouldn't be particularly welcome at a charity gala for New York financial executives, just as a New York executive wouldn't be particularly welcome at an upper-class Hollywood dance club.
But ignoring the social difference between "old" money and "new" money at the very top (you did have a good point there), I would still argue that social class and economic class are one in the same for the "bottom" 90% of the Western population.
________
To answer the OP, I would argue that yes, social classes are a good thing. A civilized world fundamentally needs leaders and followers. PM Churchill was absolutely correct about socialism/communism resulting in an equal share of misery for everyone. As the old axiom goes: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." In an ideal world, the lower classes would simply be a temporary "springboard" from which people could hit rock bottom and bounce back up into the middle classes. I see no reason why a white-collar guy shouldn't wash dishes for six months while he gets back on his feet. Alternatively, the lower classes should serve as quasi-punishment for stupid life choices. I see no reason why a drug addict should have a white-collar job or even healthcare. I realize that my views might be a little fucked up, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
I personally believe that everyone should be treated with a modicum of respect, regardless of their job. I had a lengthy conversation with an older used car salesman last week (I DESPISE used car salesmen; they are modern pariahs in my book), and I still called him "sir" until he told me to stop. Turns out that he used to be a relatively prosperous restaurant owner until his landlord screwed him over and put him out of business. I use "sir/ma'am" when I talk to homeless people too. A little respect goes a long way, and I have a basic level of respect for human dignity, regardless of social class.
I don't entirely *like* the idea of economic status being the primary determining factor of social class, but I concede that it is the most practical method and one of the more reliable methods. Hard work, common sense, a fair amount of brains, and taking initiative can still take you from lower class to upper class in our society. I've got a buddy from a poor family who joined up with the pipefitters when he graduated high school. Now he's clearing six figures a year on 40 hours a week, all on a high school diploma and with zero student loan debt. Another close friend (from a "lower" economic status) of mine joined the fire department right out of high school. He's not making as much as my pipefitter buddy, but he's still making a hell of a lot more money than his parents and he loves his job.
I would argue that the "middle class" is a happy and comfortable place to be, and as such is a worthy goal for any person. I'm middle class and the wealth distribution gap really doesn't bother me that much. Personally, I think that an end to corporate welfare and a closing of all tax loopholes would work wonders on the wealth gap, but that's a discussion for another thread. Rich guys can afford to pay top-tier accountants to squirrel their way out of the majority of their taxes, and that's admittedly fucked up.
In an ideal world, I would like to see a Starship Troopers-esque meritocracy, in which only honorably discharged veterans and those who have completed federal/state service are enfranchised and able to hold public office, but that's nothing more than a pipe dream when only a fraction of the population is either current military or honorably discharged veterans.