To make sense out of why you said the above at this point in the conversation, I have to assume you anticipate that most proposed amendments would help the poor. There is no reason at all that such would be the case. Amendments that hurt the poor would be much more likely. The majority of Americans aren't poor, and legislating is a majoritarian exercise.
Many people wish the Constitution was more malleable because then their idealistic wish list could be enacted. Yet it's much more likely that the wish lists of the most cynical manipulators of majority opinion would be enacted.
Donald Trump was elected once and was almost elected again. What sort of amendments do you think Donald Trump would propose if amending the Constitution was easier? How willingly would his cultlike following support his propositions? How hard would it be for him to swing some independents his way if he played upon their baser instincts?
Yeah I think this is basically a flawed premise. It's generally the working class (and to be honest anyone left of center) who needs the gears of government to work and move. Most of the institutional barriers in place that tend towards gridlock are antidemocratoc in their inception. They're meant to protect the wealthy minoroty from the popular will. The party in power is supposed to be able to govern, and if they should win then if they do something irresponsible or extreme then all the more likely they'll lose political favor with most Americans. But the point is that there an asymmetry between the left and the right with respect to this arrangement: if you make it such that legislation is difficult to pass or changes are difficult to make in the name of protecting us from conservative overreach you're actually playing into their hands. The more difficult it is for the public sector to function, the more the right's political agenda is fulfilled. This is why we've come to such a crushing defeat for the Democratic Party that we find outselves at now, I think.
--- the late great Donald Blake