There is indisputably an entire class of stupid people; they fall into the "stupid people" class. They're not an economic class per se.
That said, intelligence is positively correlated with socio-economic status, and the standard of competence for a mook in a suit (who has to at least have some soft skills, unlike, say, someone who works at a meat-packing plant) is much higher, simply because mook-in-a-suitdom is an urban phenomenon, and the standard of competence is much, much higher in urban areas. (There's no dumb poor person like a rural dumb poor person.)
That said, if you're going to find someone who's generally all around dumb, at least in modern North America, chances are, they're also poor, and probably rural. Which is not to say that all poor people are dumb, but that many dumb people are poor; the game is rigged that way.
IMO, the divide between dumb people and smart people is less rich-poor than urban-rural, but in some societies, they're synonymous...
(no subject)
That said, intelligence is positively correlated with socio-economic status, and the standard of competence for a mook in a suit (who has to at least have some soft skills, unlike, say, someone who works at a meat-packing plant) is much higher, simply because mook-in-a-suitdom is an urban phenomenon, and the standard of competence is much, much higher in urban areas. (There's no dumb poor person like a rural dumb poor person.)
That said, if you're going to find someone who's generally all around dumb, at least in modern North America, chances are, they're also poor, and probably rural. Which is not to say that all poor people are dumb, but that many dumb people are poor; the game is rigged that way.
IMO, the divide between dumb people and smart people is less rich-poor than urban-rural, but in some societies, they're synonymous...