5 ms·

The post I was replying to stated that the middle class was squeezed out of existence. It seemed to do so by defining it out of existence in a bizarre way.

xboxnolifes 6y ago
Alternatively, the middle class can always exist if you decide to lower the threshold until it fits your quota. A gap of between 30% to 100% of the minimum for the higher threshold seems large enough when defining a "middle".
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  It could also indicate that the higher threshold is too high. Regardless of the reason, an income of $299K is plainly not underclass by any stretch of the imagination.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    "A mark of that success is that instead of resenting having been driven out of the middle class, people resent learning that they are not in it." US economic output has remained on the same sharp rising slope since 1975 as between 1945 and 1975. But since 1975, all of that increased income has been diverted to the ruling class, while the rest of the nation has been stuck at 1975 levels. If $300,000/y seems to you like upper-class income, it is purely because you have been made accustomed to a 1975 level of prosperity, while the ruling class lives on 2021 income it has since 1975 diverted to its own pockets. The ruling class will not give up its diversion of income from your pockets to their pockets without a fight. Imagine how angry they would be at being made to give that up; you should, by rights, be more angry at their ongoing confiscation of your income.
    - baggy_trough 6y ago
      I did not claim it was upperclass. My claim was that calling it underclass is absurd.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        What is absurd is to pick a number X precisely at the estimated dividing line between two fuzzily-delineated groups A and B, and proclaim that X is certainly not group A. "Are you saying cyan is blue? It is obviously green!"
        baggy_trough 6y ago
        I believe that most people will agree that $299K incomes are not close to underclass and will therefore conclude that the proposed dividing line is a bad one.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        Continuing to pick a number identical to the dividing line reveals a bad-faith argument. What has led "most people" to conclude as they do is the actual topic under discussion. Thus you demonstrate begging the question. <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_Question http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_Question>
      - hnbad 6y ago
        Compared to the likes of Bezos, Musk or Gates, every sub-C-level FAANG employee is part of the underclass. Of course it's a gradient rather than a clear dividing line, but there are people who make 100x, 1,000x, 10,000x or more of what the lowest of the low are making and there's no gradual progression from the latter to the former. There are massive gaps that are impossible to bridge. If you consider that the average person's economic situation worsened throughout 2020 while all the top billionaires drastically increased their wealth (if not proportionately, then at least in absolute numbers), this only widens that gap. I agree that putting a single dividing line at $299k or whatever is silly, but yes, even a person making $299k is economically insignificant to a triple digit billionaire (or just any billionaire, to be honest). The divide isn't between people making $299k and people making $300k, the divide is between billionaires and people making subsistence level or less -- everyone else just falls on the gradient in between.
hnbad 6y ago
I agree to an extent, "upperclass", "underclass", "middle class", "lower class" and so on are not meaningful ways to describe societal structure, they're mostly arbitrary delineations to group income brackets with similar consumption levels and behaviors. In the UK class still refers more to traditional social standing (i.e. someone from a bloodline of aristocrats would be considered "upper class" even if they have a measly income and no generational wealth or political status) but in the US this has almost entirely eroded to refer to how much money you make (with even distinctions between "new money" and "old money" evaporating over time). Most countries lie somewhere in between. Marxists often try to be similarly reductive by saying ownership of "the means of production" is the only class distinction. But even Karl Marx wouldn't have agreed with this strictly binary approach. If you spend even a few seconds studying the biographies of the top billionaires, it should be obvious that even a small-scale business owner has less in common with them than with the working poor. If there is a single dividing line, I would say it is if money means being able to purchase goods and services, or if it means being able to exert political power. A billionaire not only has at least a thousand times as much money as someone with a thousand dollars to their name. This level of wealth compounds. Merely having this amount of money readily available not only affords them easy access to credit (and thus additional liquidity) but it also affects other people's (and companies') behavior towards them. Poor people on the other hand have to resort to collective bargaining (e.g. labor/trade unions).

xboxnolifes 6y ago

Alternatively, the middle class can always exist if you decide to lower the threshold until it fits your quota. A gap of between 30% to 100% of the minimum for the higher threshold seems large enough when defining a "middle".

baggy_trough 6y ago
It could also indicate that the higher threshold is too high. Regardless of the reason, an income of $299K is plainly not underclass by any stretch of the imagination.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  "A mark of that success is that instead of resenting having been driven out of the middle class, people resent learning that they are not in it." US economic output has remained on the same sharp rising slope since 1975 as between 1945 and 1975. But since 1975, all of that increased income has been diverted to the ruling class, while the rest of the nation has been stuck at 1975 levels. If $300,000/y seems to you like upper-class income, it is purely because you have been made accustomed to a 1975 level of prosperity, while the ruling class lives on 2021 income it has since 1975 diverted to its own pockets. The ruling class will not give up its diversion of income from your pockets to their pockets without a fight. Imagine how angry they would be at being made to give that up; you should, by rights, be more angry at their ongoing confiscation of your income.
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    I did not claim it was upperclass. My claim was that calling it underclass is absurd.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      What is absurd is to pick a number X precisely at the estimated dividing line between two fuzzily-delineated groups A and B, and proclaim that X is certainly not group A. "Are you saying cyan is blue? It is obviously green!"
      - baggy_trough 6y ago
        I believe that most people will agree that $299K incomes are not close to underclass and will therefore conclude that the proposed dividing line is a bad one.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        Continuing to pick a number identical to the dividing line reveals a bad-faith argument. What has led "most people" to conclude as they do is the actual topic under discussion. Thus you demonstrate begging the question. <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_Question http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_Question>
    - hnbad 6y ago
      Compared to the likes of Bezos, Musk or Gates, every sub-C-level FAANG employee is part of the underclass. Of course it's a gradient rather than a clear dividing line, but there are people who make 100x, 1,000x, 10,000x or more of what the lowest of the low are making and there's no gradual progression from the latter to the former. There are massive gaps that are impossible to bridge. If you consider that the average person's economic situation worsened throughout 2020 while all the top billionaires drastically increased their wealth (if not proportionately, then at least in absolute numbers), this only widens that gap. I agree that putting a single dividing line at $299k or whatever is silly, but yes, even a person making $299k is economically insignificant to a triple digit billionaire (or just any billionaire, to be honest). The divide isn't between people making $299k and people making $300k, the divide is between billionaires and people making subsistence level or less -- everyone else just falls on the gradient in between.

hnbad 6y ago

I agree to an extent, "upperclass", "underclass", "middle class", "lower class" and so on are not meaningful ways to describe societal structure, they're mostly arbitrary delineations to group income brackets with similar consumption levels and behaviors. In the UK class still refers more to traditional social standing (i.e. someone from a bloodline of aristocrats would be considered "upper class" even if they have a measly income and no generational wealth or political status) but in the US this has almost entirely eroded to refer to how much money you make (with even distinctions between "new money" and "old money" evaporating over time). Most countries lie somewhere in between. Marxists often try to be similarly reductive by saying ownership of "the means of production" is the only class distinction. But even Karl Marx wouldn't have agreed with this strictly binary approach. If you spend even a few seconds studying the biographies of the top billionaires, it should be obvious that even a small-scale business owner has less in common with them than with the working poor. If there is a single dividing line, I would say it is if money means being able to purchase goods and services, or if it means being able to exert political power. A billionaire not only has at least a thousand times as much money as someone with a thousand dollars to their name. This level of wealth compounds. Merely having this amount of money readily available not only affords them easy access to credit (and thus additional liquidity) but it also affects other people's (and companies') behavior towards them. Poor people on the other hand have to resort to collective bargaining (e.g. labor/trade unions).