5 ms·

Your salary is not what makes you working class or bourgeoisie. The distinction is, broadly, whether you must sell your labor to survive.

refurb 6y ago
So a FAANG employee pulling in $600k a year is "working class"? Hell no. If you're in the top 1% of income (~$400k per year) you are wealthy.
- jandrewrogers 6y ago
  While they definitely are not “blue collar”, income is not wealth. It is a mistake to conflate income and wealth, the implications are very different. One can have a high income today and be destitute tomorrow absent wealth. Wealthy people are a subset of those with high incomes.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Your definition doesn't really align with how "wealthy" is used. If you're making $400k per year, how long before you start to accumulate substantial wealth? Pretty quickly I'd say. Sure it might not be millions, but if you sock away $200k at age 25 after 3 years, you have more wealth than 99% of people your age. "Wealthy" is not limited to wealth alone. If you're making $2M a year and have no savings, you're still "wealthy". And people with large amount of wealth (your definition) can still become destitute. There are plenty of examples.
    - Hydraulix989 6y ago
      Starter homes in San Francisco start at $1M. That $400k post tax is mostly going into housing.
      - refurb 6y ago
        Yeah, but owning a single family home in one of the most desirable cities in the US makes you rich. That’s something 90% of America couldn’t dream of doing.
      - jpetso 6y ago
        Being able to own a starter home outright within 3 years or so sounds pretty sweet to me. Many people need decades to pay off their mortgage.
- content_sesh 6y ago
  "Working class" in the sense of political economy, not Western shorthand for "blue collar". And yes, I believe that if you sell your labor for a living, whether it be for $400k at Apple or otherwise, you have more in common with someone making $24k bussing tables than you do with the person who owns property for a living.
missedthecue 6y ago
I think "survive" has a really wide range of definitions. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, both the $1m+ per year NYC bankers and the $50k per year midwest mailman. Both could survive on far less.

refurb 6y ago

So a FAANG employee pulling in $600k a year is "working class"? Hell no. If you're in the top 1% of income (~$400k per year) you are wealthy.

jandrewrogers 6y ago
While they definitely are not “blue collar”, income is not wealth. It is a mistake to conflate income and wealth, the implications are very different. One can have a high income today and be destitute tomorrow absent wealth. Wealthy people are a subset of those with high incomes.
- refurb 6y ago
  Your definition doesn't really align with how "wealthy" is used. If you're making $400k per year, how long before you start to accumulate substantial wealth? Pretty quickly I'd say. Sure it might not be millions, but if you sock away $200k at age 25 after 3 years, you have more wealth than 99% of people your age. "Wealthy" is not limited to wealth alone. If you're making $2M a year and have no savings, you're still "wealthy". And people with large amount of wealth (your definition) can still become destitute. There are plenty of examples.
  - Hydraulix989 6y ago
    Starter homes in San Francisco start at $1M. That $400k post tax is mostly going into housing.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Yeah, but owning a single family home in one of the most desirable cities in the US makes you rich. That’s something 90% of America couldn’t dream of doing.
    - jpetso 6y ago
      Being able to own a starter home outright within 3 years or so sounds pretty sweet to me. Many people need decades to pay off their mortgage.
content_sesh 6y ago
"Working class" in the sense of political economy, not Western shorthand for "blue collar". And yes, I believe that if you sell your labor for a living, whether it be for $400k at Apple or otherwise, you have more in common with someone making $24k bussing tables than you do with the person who owns property for a living.

missedthecue 6y ago

I think "survive" has a really wide range of definitions. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, both the $1m+ per year NYC bankers and the $50k per year midwest mailman. Both could survive on far less.