Baz Scott
clarity flowersYour regular reminder that "the rich" aren't people who earn large paychecks. They are people with capital that generates returns: investments, property, company shares. "High income earners" are not an intrinsic enemy of "the working class" – many of them are a member of it!
a surgeon earning $400k with few investments living paycheck-to-paycheck (very possible if they have a sick parent with high healthcare costs or high childcare prices) has more in common with a food service worker than with Jeff Bezos, but the system is designed to make both workers forget that.
And noteworthily: a NYT opinions journalist who earns a $120k salary and another $200k on their investments and tenant rent absolutely _is_ part of the capitalist class and rich, even though their income is lower than the hypothetical surgeon's!
Psy Chuan 
adritheonly@clarity Yes, quite, the whole reason for the innocent, yet in-your-face phrase "a gentleman of leisure".
Nicks World@viscountexx @clarity Bingo! Finally someone who gets it!
Colman Reilly@NicksWorld @viscountexx @clarity if you have a boss who can fire you (or would like one) you’re working class. If you rely on the sweat of your brow but truly work for yourself you’re middle class and if you’re properly rich off owning stuff you’re whatever the upper class is called now.
Haelwenn /элвэн/ 
@clarity Pretty much why I tend to instead say bourgeoisie or capitalist instead of "rich" or worse "1%", even though I feel like that could make some people react badly.
@lanodan "rent-seekers" is a somewhat less poisoned word in the discourse
@clarity Yeah but I find that one too reductive, specially as it's not immediately obvious it also includes ones like venture capitalists.
Jay@lanodan @clarity “Predatory capitalists” may be a redundant phrase, but for those temporarily embarrassed millionaires, it may provide enough mental room to oppose their actions instead of rejecting the message entirely, while still describing the actions that they take and not their monetary worth.
64kb@clarity exactly the real class division is people work for their money Vs people whose money works for them
Aaron
LR@lritter the number of boosts on this post indicate that mastodon is not beating the "social media for software engineers" allegations
NaClKnight 🧂⚔️🥊@NaClKnight @clarity it's fortunately a bit fuzzier than this. it's not much but it's home.
Ian K. Rogers ikr?╭ರ_ಠ@clarity If you're not an owner or management, you're a worker - but many who "earn high paychecks" sympathize with the management class and aspire to it. That's more of the issue. Of course we can get into the details of small business owners and entrepeneurs vs corporate C Level "workers" but it's the aspiration toward being on top of the shit heap and maintaining it so you might get your turn that causes class conflict even more than simple capitalism and rentseekeing etc themselves.
@ianrogers yeah class traitorship is very common among high-earners and is a serious problem that need addressing
Darwin Woodka
your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦@clarity NBA players and Hollywood actors, producers and directors are all unionized
Robin Barton@clarity Property rights exist because that is were the Epstein-billionaires make their money. Wage rights don't exist because that is where peasants earn their bread
🥑 Yours Truly! Unruly 🇨🇦🇪🇺🇺🇦🌻Is all we are saying that there are the rich in the eye of the beholden and then there are the filthy rich in the eye for the beheadin?
@unruly lmao yeah that works
LevkaLevka (@[email protected])
@MikeDunnAuthor @[email protected] Good for you. Some labor radicals don’t even think of these women as “real" workers because they make so much money. That is unmitigated bullshit. A worker is a worker is a worker. A skilled worker is a worker. An unskilled worker is a worker. A full time worker is a worker. A part-time worker is a worker. A high paid worker is a worker. A low paid worker is a worker. An unemployed worker is a worker. A retired worker is a worker. A disabled worker is a worker. A houseworker is a worker. A sex worker is a worker. A soldier is a worker in uniform. A student is a worker in training. If you work, you're a worker. Period. We who live by our labor, whatever that labor may be, are all workers. We're all on the same side of the class war.
sortius 
Jacob Ibáñez 🔒
@clarity you made me reconsider my beliefs about classes, thanks! It's a very interesting point of view and helps me feel better for having a higher income than many people I know. I already have a very strong feeling of belonging to the working class, but sometimes my privileged status makes me feel like I belong less? If that makes sense? Anyways, thanks again for sharing
Graham Downs@clarity Are you saying the converse IS true, though? That people with capital that generates returns are intrinsic enemies of "the working class"?
Meaning that someone who had the good fortune to have some spare money, and the good sense to invest it wisely, the the second good fortune to have those investments pay dividends, should be the enemy of the working class?
Or that if a member of the working class finds themselves in the fortunate position to have some spare cash lying around, they'd better not dare invest it into anything that's going to pay dividends, or they will automatically find themselves being the enemy of those they once called friends? 🤔
Adam Trickett 
@GrahamDowns @clarity in some countries a significant proportion of shares are held by pension funds, made up of the pensions of millions of normal working people. In effect people own the companies that employ them. The problem is that pension funds never vote against the board so a tiny number of robber barons can milk the system without even owning most of it.
In civilised countries no one goes bankrupt because of illness, because of socialised health care.
I think you've just described the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie
A small business owner literally owns the means of production. However, they're also operating at the whims of bigger companies who may deign to put them out of business at any moment, sometimes unintentionally.
A mechanic who owns a small house and then inherits his mother's house after she dies may now become a landlord.
But in both of those situations, do they have more in common with pure wage owners? Or with higher level capitalists?
Who are they voting for? What policies are they advocating for? Whose interests do they fight for? Who do they want to protect?
Answer that and you answer your question about the "enemy of the working class"
If owning some petty stocks was enough to reliably get you out of the working class they wouldn't let us do it. If inheriting a home was a reliable counter to living paycheck to paycheck we'd talk about it.
@clarity, correct me if I'm taking this in a different direction than desired.
@NaClKnight @clarity I was being a lot simpler than that. There are legitimate stories of people (I even know one personally) who grew up, privileged sure, by the modern definition of the word, who started working menial jobs, but were lucky enough to have to have some money squirreled away. Maybe by inheritance, maybe by a lucky night at the casino and they had the fortitude to know when to stop, maybe just by virtue of their upbringing. But they had ambition, and no desire to be a member of the working class for their whole lives.
So they bought stocks. Or a house which they never intended to live in. And then a few years later, another. And another. While still living in their parents' homes, or perhaps in a relatively modest flat, while driving a relatively modest car which they serviced themselves. While continuing to squirrel sway money, reinvesting what they earned from their investments, until one day they retired at 40, never having to work again.
They were initially privileged, then they got lucky, but they worked hard (perhaps by a different definition of "work", sure), but they were able to capitalize on that luck and privilege.
Should they now be punished for it?
While other people blew away their luck on expensive cars, restaurants, maybe drugs, and generally extravagent lifestyles, making sure that they would always end up right back where they started, over and over again....
It is possible, with a few strokes of luck, and a lot of discipline, for the average person to break their way out. But for some reason, we like to vilify those people, because we tend to believe that it can never happen to us. And if we can't do it, we don't think anyone should be allowed to do it, so we label those people as "the enemy".
Sure! Please allow me to further simplify.
Asking 'What if someone makes it out of the working class? Are they a bad person?' misses the point.
Your premise "It is possible, with a few strokes of luck, and a lot of discipline, for the average person to break their way out."
Is increasingly difficult and increasingly unlikely. We have clear, unambiguous evidence of the ownership class reducing the possibility of someone "breaking out" as a matter of policy choice. Things are getting worse. Not better. Fewer people have more money, societally. Categorically.
The amount of "luck" and "discipline" needed have increased measurably and dramatically within my lifetime, let alone my parents' lifetime. That's the point. Pretending it's as easy as budgeting well is disingenuous.
The original post is about categories, not anecdotes. But if you want a specific answer? If your friend strikes it rich and then uses that wealth to advocate for policies that further entrench the wealth they have and disadvantage workers, then yes, that's villainous.
@NaClKnight @clarity I saw the original post as being about us vs them. More than just categories, it was about who is the enemy of whom. Someone with investments that produce returns is the enemy of someone who works for a paycheque. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And I took exception to that because once again, it creates this divide. This idea that anyone different to us is "other", and "other" is dangerous, and "other" is the enemy and we need to control them.
The person who works for a paycheque is not necessarily the enemy of the person who makes all their money through returns on smart or lucky investments, or the one who makes their money through a combination of things. Nor is the person who happily works for a paycheque their whole lives more or less worthy than the one who is restless and ambitious and unsatisfied with that lot and is always scheming of a way out of that lifestyle, whether they make it or not.
Nor is the person who was lucky enough to be born of a billionaire and never has to even consider what it might be like to have to work for a paycheque... We'd love for them to learn, of course, because it's good to expose yourself to other people's struggles, but it doesn't make them less worthy, nor should they be punished for their luck.
Why must it always be about us vs them and friends vs enemies? Why can't people with different opinions, different life experiences, and different outlooks just get along?
That's what prompted my response, and that was my point. I understand that it's a lot more difficult to break out today than it was even 20 years ago, let alone 50. But even 50 years ago, there were working class people who would've considered those who made it as "the enemy", so nothing's really changed from that perspective.
@GrahamDowns "Why can't people with different opinions, different life experiences, and different outlooks just get along?" This is the the kind of thing a child asks their mother, not serious discourse. If you don't know the answer to this question, I'm not going to be able to answer it for you in a post. @NaClKnight
Thanks, @clarity
@GrahamDowns
We're talking past each other or you're being willfully obtuse.
You say "the person who was lucky enough to be born of a billionaire... shouldn't be punished for their luck"
and "Why can't people with different opinions, different life experiences, and different outlooks just get along?"
and "The person who works for a paycheque is not necessarily the enemy of the person who makes all their money through returns on smart or lucky investments"
These all strike me as incredibly naive or otherwise outright excuses for why we need to be nicer to the innocent capital owners and rent extractors who keep coincidentally working to consolidate money and power and extract as much as possible from those who labor.
This conversation is past its expiration date. Take care.
@NaClKnight If you DO want anecdotes, here's a few:
Back when Bitcoin first dropped and everyone was talking about it, someone I knew did some mining for a couple of months, and he managed to scrounge together something like 0.3 BTC or something. Which, at the time, wasn't worth very much, because nobody had any idea how far this thing would go. He stopped when everyone else jumped on the bandwagon, and you had these serious miners with their 32GB graphics cards and crap, and it just wasn't worth it anymore for a hobbyist living with his parents, using a dinky 4GB card (which just a year before was almost top of the range, mind you).
But he kept his 0.3 BTC, until the price reached something like ZAR5000 per BTC, and then he sold it. He still tells that story today, because if he'd kept it to now, that 0.3 BTC would easily have ensured his 17-month-old daughter would ever have to work a day in her life -- and quite possibly HER kids too, at least.
It will always be harder today than it was yesterday, because as soon as people realise that something is a viable business strategy, everyone jumps on it and the small fry get pushed out. 15 years ago, an indie author going pro and writing full time with only a few books was a very real possibility. Five years ago, you needed 50 books. Today, you need at least 50 books, AND you have to convince everyone that you're not an AI.
Same with YouTube or Twitch stars. Same with Instagram Inflluencers. You need to get in on the ground floor, make as much money as you can as quickly as you can, and then get out before it gets too saturated. If that's your thing, of course. If not, that's fine too; you're no less worthy just because you're not interested in constantly chasing the next big thing.
The person I was actually thinking of when I wrote my post yesterday did it with property, because that was 50 years ago, and property was "the thing" back then. At the height of his success, he was actively earning rent from something like 12 different houses. He's now sold most of them and has retired, and I don't even know where he's living anymore because every time I speak to him he's in a different country.
I actually know another person, whom I'd forgotten about, who did it through crypto. Unlike the first friend, he DID hang on to his BTC until it was worth millions. He's the one who retired at 40 (45, I think), and is now practically living on a yacht in the Mediterranean.
Neither of these people are Elon Musk rich. Or even "100th on the list" rich. :-)
But they're rich enough to live the lifestyle that they want to live, and to not have to work at all if they don't want to. They did it through hard work, though. Yeah, they were maybe lucky in the beginning, but it takes smarts and work and sacrifice to capitalise on that luck and turn it into something you can build a life on.
I don't think that makes either of those people *enemies* of the working class.
EDIT: I just checked the price of a BTC in ZAR... Not quite enough for his daughter to never have to work a day in her life. But definitely a nice nest egg. It'd pay for a university degree for her, at least. Or deposit on a home or something. Particularly if he took that money and invested it now. But it's nice to dream. :-)
Quasit
Flux@clarity What about those in countries with mandatory superannuation, a system where an additional % of your income gets invested on your behalf (unless you decide to manage it) for retirement.
Technically everyone under that would own forms of investor assets even if their not upper class.
That said I do generally agree.
Vile Lasagna@clarity The way I've seen it put that I think encapsulates it is that "it doesn't matter how much you earn, if you have to work for a living (y'know, like for a salary or sales), you're working class. The rich are the people who live off of the money made by other people's work"
Steve Holden@clarity @frechdachs Which is why unearned and earned income should be taxed the same.