12 ms·

Which part? Tech workers being in the top 1% of income/wealth? Or the definition of upper class?

CPLX 7y ago
My assertion is that a tech worker with a household income of $421,920 or higher is very clearly in the upper class by any reasonable definition.
- badfrog 7y ago
  I do think there's an interesting question about whether income or wealth is the defining characteristic of upper class. Top 1% wealth is around $10m, which your typical 30 year old high-income tech worker won't have.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    it's sort of a tautological question. "upper class" is just terminology; it means whatever is convenient shorthand for the discussion. you and I get to decide what the defining characteristic of "upper class" is for the rest of this thread. that was a bit snarky so I'll expand a little. I think people typically use "upper class" to signify the highest echelon in the power structure of society. but there are a lot of ways to have power over others, and it doesn't map perfectly onto money. an influential media personality may have more influence than someone far richer but unknown to the public. someone with a high worth on paper might have liquidity issues that force them to be careful with their spending. you might be wealthy and politically connected, but excluded from certain social circles anyway.
- richmarr 7y ago
  Where should that threshold be? Does it move every year due to inflation? I think a more reliable distinction would be whether a person's income predominantly comes from their labour, or whether it proedominantly comes from what they own.
  - CPLX 7y ago
    > Where should that threshold be? Does it move every year due to inflation? The threshhold for being in the top 1% of income is that 99% or more of people make less than you.
    - richmarr 7y ago
      > The threshhold for being in the top 1% of income is that 99% or more of people make less than you. Clearly I mean the threshold for being upper class a term mentioned in your actual comment... unlike "top 1%" which was not.
      - CPLX 7y ago
        Not all members of the upper class are in the top 1%. But all members of the top 1% are in the upper class.
        richmarr 7y ago
        So we're agreed that "top 1%" and "upper class" are not interchangable terms.
- awinder 7y ago
  Yeah, and that 421K number is across the entire US. 1%-er in California it’s over 500K. You can utilize Glassdoor to see that even looking at salaries at FAANG that is not an average experience. People in the top 10% bracket straight up believe they’re in the 1% when it suits their world view and they’re in the middle class when it suits a different component of their world view. It’s maddening.
  - cagenut 7y ago
    You could even say the contradictions are heightening.
- redwall_hp 7y ago
  Class isn't a function of income: if you exchange labor for money, you're working class. If your name is on a badge or a desk, you're working class. If your name is on a building and you make money primarily by investing capital and owning production, you're part of the bourgeoise. There are only a few hundred billionaires in this country, and they didn't get that money by being paid a salary.
  - badfrog 7y ago
    > you make money primarily by investing capital and owning production So all the retired people living off their 401k are now part of the upper class?
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      Is “yes” an unreasonable answer? They’re certainly not part of the stereotype, but neither is an IC tech worker, and I’d expect a retired person living off their investments would be pretty aligned with blue bloods on political and economic issues. Certainly they’d be opposed to any policy that’ll tank the value of their portfolio.
    - verall 7y ago
      This is just a silly strawman. Of course there is a class difference between people at retirement age: - Has enough wealth to pay for daily life with interest/dividends. Nearly all wealth sill be left to family+friends upon death. (Upper class) - Has enough wealth to retire, drawing upon this wealth to survive. Must work late into life in order to leave a significant inheritance. (Middle class) - Not enough wealth to survive without working or leave significant inheritance. Must rely on friends, family, or the state when unable to work in old age. (Lower class)
    - vostok 7y ago
      I think you'd want to adjust for age, source of wealth, and income level to have a reasonable definition. Are they in their 30s with inherited wealth that allows them to spend like someone with a top 1% incone?
    - 7y ago
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  No upper class person is working for a tech company. They might own one, but they aren't working for them.
  - shados 7y ago
    That's the issue. Articles like this talk about the "1%", but they're trying to convince people that everyone in the 1% are Bill Gates or Jeff Besos. If the top 1% is an household income of $475,116, and you have 2 working people, they each need to make $237,558 That's certainly a lot, but on the coasts, a college grad can get a $120k or more offer straight out of school. I've heard of much higher ones, but lets use this number. So to be a 1%, you could simply have a couple where both techies that make twice as much as a new grad. That's not exactly far fetched, when you include equity at a public company. Of course, these people likely spend 3-5k/month on housing, are paying 6 figure in student debt each, might be sending their toddlers to a day care or a private school and saving for said toddlers' college, and putting a bunch in equity to supplement their 401k and emergencies. Clearly way better off than most, but also probably having discussions as if they should eat out less often to save some money and if they really need 2 cars or not, because gas and maintenance is starting to add up. So in a good (great even) place, but certainly not the same world as what comes to mind when people say "1 percenter". High income doesn't really mean upper class.
    - CPLX 7y ago
      > So in a good (great even) place, but certainly not the same world as what comes to mind when people say "1 percenter". Yes, it is. > High income doesn't really mean upper class. Yes it does. Making 10x the annual average family income makes you upper class. That’s what the words mean. The cognitive dissonance you’re experiencing here is not that the rest of the world is confused about the obvious fact that the top 1% is way above average, it’s that you’re confused about where the average is.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        "upper class" means whatever people use it to mean, hopefully something that's useful to the discussion at hand. NFL players get paid very high salaries, but the average career is only three years. many of them blow through it and have only meager pensions and the aftermath of injuries to look forward to in their old age. are they "upper class" for the brief part of their life when they have the cash flow or just an edge case of the exploited worker?
- umanwizard 7y ago
  No they aren’t. Making 400k puts you in the same class as someone making 80k. Both have to work for a living, and neither experiences real deprivation. Those are the two most salient factors. If you have to work for a living you are not upper class, period.
- NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
  That's tautological for you since you've decided that income is your determiner of class status, and I think this is more controversial than you accept. My wife and I are income 1%ers, but we're also first-generation college graduates. We live in a city with a tremendously high cost-of-living, because it's where our jobs are. If we are lucky, we will inherit some small amount of equity in our parents homes. We have no political connections or clout. Our income is virtually 100% in the form of pay from our employers. From your point of view, we're better candidates to be "upper class" than say, Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York (salary: ~$180K) despite the fact that Cuomo's father was also Governor of New York, he was married to a Kennedy, and he presided at Billy Joel's wedding to his fourth wife?
  - CPLX 7y ago
    It’s not actually complicated or a contradiction. Both of you are members of the upper class.

CPLX 7y ago

My assertion is that a tech worker with a household income of $421,920 or higher is very clearly in the upper class by any reasonable definition.

badfrog 7y ago
I do think there's an interesting question about whether income or wealth is the defining characteristic of upper class. Top 1% wealth is around $10m, which your typical 30 year old high-income tech worker won't have.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  it's sort of a tautological question. "upper class" is just terminology; it means whatever is convenient shorthand for the discussion. you and I get to decide what the defining characteristic of "upper class" is for the rest of this thread. that was a bit snarky so I'll expand a little. I think people typically use "upper class" to signify the highest echelon in the power structure of society. but there are a lot of ways to have power over others, and it doesn't map perfectly onto money. an influential media personality may have more influence than someone far richer but unknown to the public. someone with a high worth on paper might have liquidity issues that force them to be careful with their spending. you might be wealthy and politically connected, but excluded from certain social circles anyway.
richmarr 7y ago
Where should that threshold be? Does it move every year due to inflation? I think a more reliable distinction would be whether a person's income predominantly comes from their labour, or whether it proedominantly comes from what they own.
- CPLX 7y ago
  > Where should that threshold be? Does it move every year due to inflation? The threshhold for being in the top 1% of income is that 99% or more of people make less than you.
  - richmarr 7y ago
    > The threshhold for being in the top 1% of income is that 99% or more of people make less than you. Clearly I mean the threshold for being upper class a term mentioned in your actual comment... unlike "top 1%" which was not.
    - CPLX 7y ago
      Not all members of the upper class are in the top 1%. But all members of the top 1% are in the upper class.
      - richmarr 7y ago
        So we're agreed that "top 1%" and "upper class" are not interchangable terms.
awinder 7y ago
Yeah, and that 421K number is across the entire US. 1%-er in California it’s over 500K. You can utilize Glassdoor to see that even looking at salaries at FAANG that is not an average experience. People in the top 10% bracket straight up believe they’re in the 1% when it suits their world view and they’re in the middle class when it suits a different component of their world view. It’s maddening.
- cagenut 7y ago
  You could even say the contradictions are heightening.
redwall_hp 7y ago
Class isn't a function of income: if you exchange labor for money, you're working class. If your name is on a badge or a desk, you're working class. If your name is on a building and you make money primarily by investing capital and owning production, you're part of the bourgeoise. There are only a few hundred billionaires in this country, and they didn't get that money by being paid a salary.
- badfrog 7y ago
  > you make money primarily by investing capital and owning production So all the retired people living off their 401k are now part of the upper class?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Is “yes” an unreasonable answer? They’re certainly not part of the stereotype, but neither is an IC tech worker, and I’d expect a retired person living off their investments would be pretty aligned with blue bloods on political and economic issues. Certainly they’d be opposed to any policy that’ll tank the value of their portfolio.
  - verall 7y ago
    This is just a silly strawman. Of course there is a class difference between people at retirement age: - Has enough wealth to pay for daily life with interest/dividends. Nearly all wealth sill be left to family+friends upon death. (Upper class) - Has enough wealth to retire, drawing upon this wealth to survive. Must work late into life in order to leave a significant inheritance. (Middle class) - Not enough wealth to survive without working or leave significant inheritance. Must rely on friends, family, or the state when unable to work in old age. (Lower class)
  - vostok 7y ago
    I think you'd want to adjust for age, source of wealth, and income level to have a reasonable definition. Are they in their 30s with inherited wealth that allows them to spend like someone with a top 1% incone?
  - 7y ago
chrisseaton 7y ago
No upper class person is working for a tech company. They might own one, but they aren't working for them.
- shados 7y ago
  That's the issue. Articles like this talk about the "1%", but they're trying to convince people that everyone in the 1% are Bill Gates or Jeff Besos. If the top 1% is an household income of $475,116, and you have 2 working people, they each need to make $237,558 That's certainly a lot, but on the coasts, a college grad can get a $120k or more offer straight out of school. I've heard of much higher ones, but lets use this number. So to be a 1%, you could simply have a couple where both techies that make twice as much as a new grad. That's not exactly far fetched, when you include equity at a public company. Of course, these people likely spend 3-5k/month on housing, are paying 6 figure in student debt each, might be sending their toddlers to a day care or a private school and saving for said toddlers' college, and putting a bunch in equity to supplement their 401k and emergencies. Clearly way better off than most, but also probably having discussions as if they should eat out less often to save some money and if they really need 2 cars or not, because gas and maintenance is starting to add up. So in a good (great even) place, but certainly not the same world as what comes to mind when people say "1 percenter". High income doesn't really mean upper class.
  - CPLX 7y ago
    > So in a good (great even) place, but certainly not the same world as what comes to mind when people say "1 percenter". Yes, it is. > High income doesn't really mean upper class. Yes it does. Making 10x the annual average family income makes you upper class. That’s what the words mean. The cognitive dissonance you’re experiencing here is not that the rest of the world is confused about the obvious fact that the top 1% is way above average, it’s that you’re confused about where the average is.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      "upper class" means whatever people use it to mean, hopefully something that's useful to the discussion at hand. NFL players get paid very high salaries, but the average career is only three years. many of them blow through it and have only meager pensions and the aftermath of injuries to look forward to in their old age. are they "upper class" for the brief part of their life when they have the cash flow or just an edge case of the exploited worker?
umanwizard 7y ago
No they aren’t. Making 400k puts you in the same class as someone making 80k. Both have to work for a living, and neither experiences real deprivation. Those are the two most salient factors. If you have to work for a living you are not upper class, period.
NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
That's tautological for you since you've decided that income is your determiner of class status, and I think this is more controversial than you accept. My wife and I are income 1%ers, but we're also first-generation college graduates. We live in a city with a tremendously high cost-of-living, because it's where our jobs are. If we are lucky, we will inherit some small amount of equity in our parents homes. We have no political connections or clout. Our income is virtually 100% in the form of pay from our employers. From your point of view, we're better candidates to be "upper class" than say, Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York (salary: ~$180K) despite the fact that Cuomo's father was also Governor of New York, he was married to a Kennedy, and he presided at Billy Joel's wedding to his fourth wife?
- CPLX 7y ago
  It’s not actually complicated or a contradiction. Both of you are members of the upper class.