3 ms·

Ridiculous. So Kevin Garnett, who earned $334m playing in the NBA is working class, but the guy next door to me who owns a flooring business (run out of his van

by greedo 9y ago

Ridiculous. So Kevin Garnett, who earned $334m playing in the NBA is working class, but the guy next door to me who owns a flooring business (run out of his van & home) with one employee is in the capitalist class... A difference without distinction. One is rich beyond most people's wildest dreams, the other is very much middle class.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> but the guy next door to me who owns a flooring business (run out of his van & home) with one employee is in the capitalist class Probably middle class, since presunably if the business is run out of his van and home, his applying his own labor to it is vital. > One is rich beyond most people's wildest dreams Wealth and class are correlated but separate axes of variation. You know how many pro-athletes end up destitute shortly after they stop being able to sell their labor at high prices? They dependence is the hallmark of the working class. Now, it's true, they if you are making what a star player does in any of the major sports, you have enough money coming in that you could easily buy yourself into the capitalist class; but until and unless you do that, you haven't changed the basic manner in which you relate to the economic system, and remain a rich worker, not a member of any other class.
- greedo 9y ago
  You missed where I said he had one employee. So he's a capitalist? These definitions are useless when it comes to evaluating wealth and the meaning of being rich. Being a "capitalist" by your definition doesn't mean being wealthy or rich by any stretch, while being a "worker" can result in unimaginable wealth.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > You missed where I said he had one employee. No, didn't. > So he's a capitalist? He'd be a capitalist if his own labor was an insignificant share of the labor applied to his capital; a small business with one non-owner employee rarely would be that way (it could be, if, e.g., the employee did all the work and the owner was purely a passive investor.) > These definitions are useless when it comes to evaluating wealth and the meaning of being rich. They have a lot more to do with wealth than income level does, though, yes, class and wealth are not identical. > Being a "capitalist" by your definition doesn't mean being wealthy or rich by any stretch Surviving as one certainly does, unless you can consistently, year over year, manage improbably high returns (and if you can, you'll probably be quite wealthy before long even if you didn't start there; instantaneous inconsistencies between class economic patterns and wealth are more common than durable ones.) > while being a "worker" can result in unimaginable wealth. It can in theory, though it doesn't very often in practice, even among the narrow slice of the labor-selling population who experience some period with the kind of income which suggests the possibility of such an outcome.

by greedo 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> but the guy next door to me who owns a flooring business (run out of his van & home) with one employee is in the capitalist class Probably middle class, since presunably if the business is run out of his van and home, his applying his own labor to it is vital. > One is rich beyond most people's wildest dreams Wealth and class are correlated but separate axes of variation. You know how many pro-athletes end up destitute shortly after they stop being able to sell their labor at high prices? They dependence is the hallmark of the working class. Now, it's true, they if you are making what a star player does in any of the major sports, you have enough money coming in that you could easily buy yourself into the capitalist class; but until and unless you do that, you haven't changed the basic manner in which you relate to the economic system, and remain a rich worker, not a member of any other class.

greedo 9y ago
You missed where I said he had one employee. So he's a capitalist? These definitions are useless when it comes to evaluating wealth and the meaning of being rich. Being a "capitalist" by your definition doesn't mean being wealthy or rich by any stretch, while being a "worker" can result in unimaginable wealth.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > You missed where I said he had one employee. No, didn't. > So he's a capitalist? He'd be a capitalist if his own labor was an insignificant share of the labor applied to his capital; a small business with one non-owner employee rarely would be that way (it could be, if, e.g., the employee did all the work and the owner was purely a passive investor.) > These definitions are useless when it comes to evaluating wealth and the meaning of being rich. They have a lot more to do with wealth than income level does, though, yes, class and wealth are not identical. > Being a "capitalist" by your definition doesn't mean being wealthy or rich by any stretch Surviving as one certainly does, unless you can consistently, year over year, manage improbably high returns (and if you can, you'll probably be quite wealthy before long even if you didn't start there; instantaneous inconsistencies between class economic patterns and wealth are more common than durable ones.) > while being a "worker" can result in unimaginable wealth. It can in theory, though it doesn't very often in practice, even among the narrow slice of the labor-selling population who experience some period with the kind of income which suggests the possibility of such an outcome.