Are rich people more important than poor people?

May be it would be other professions that changed jobs more but the wages of highly or semi highly skilled people would fall and the low skilled wages would increase. People need a higher wage to persuade them to change jobs because they have better alternatives. The only people that wouldn't have better alternatives are people provide services only to ther poor, like the ones you pointed out, providing these things only costs the rich money so it is good that those jobs have been got rid of.

If I were to give injections that cured cancer who you value it more, people with cancer or people without cancer? If I built a building in London who would value it more, a londoner or a north korean who cannot travel to london?

The flaw in your argument is the premise that they would have better alternatives. They wouldn't.

Without the working poor and their individually small, but collectively very large expendable income, millions of semi-skilled workers (junior and senior retail mangers, white collar financial service workers ect etc) would find themselves unemployed. In the absence of semi-skilled work, semi-skilled workers would be forced to take menial jobs. Supply would remain high and wages would remain low.

This is just reductio ad absurdum. A North Korean's valuation of a building in London which they cannot travel to is utterly meaningless.

You only have to look at wealthy pop "stars" like addelle ... she is rolling in it but is a complete waste of a considerable amount of space which could be used for a donkey sanctuary or a biscuit factory

What about the mechanisation of the work force? Many low paid jobs can/are being mechanised.

Yeah so that greedy employers can cut labour costs and increase their profit. I dont see how that equates to rich people being more important.

And also: who makes the machinery that allows for some jobs to be mechanised?

So are you saying businesses shouldn't try to be efficient?
Engineers make the machinery, and engineers don't tend to be poor.

It's a sad reality that most of the poor are not academically gifted and we live in a world where there is little need for those who are not academically gifted because robots tend to do their job better.

So theres no need for bus drivers, nurses, cleaners, plumbers, electricians, waiters and catering staff?

...if you say so.

Where did I say we don't need anyone who isn't academically gifted?
Protip - read what is written and don't substitute words.

No, because its the poor people that do all the work, "rich" people a.k.a people who lead can always be replaced by other people who can lead or sit in offices and make decisions, but people who do hard labour can't be replaced as easily.

Well really it's the other way around. Pretty much any one can work say on the shop floor, but it's not every one that can turn a company around and make a big profit. It's the workers that are more replaceable than the top CEO's

...and employers rely on workers to make something of the company.

In a theoretical scenario of a supermarket, the workers on the floor are more dispensable than the guys at the top, because there are more people at the bottom that can do the same job