5 ms·

> What makes high wages possible is high worker productivity. What makes high wages possibly is strong worker unions that don’t put up with a few people becomi

by moksly 5y ago

> What makes high wages possible is high worker productivity. What makes high wages possibly is strong worker unions that don’t put up with a few people becoming billionaires on the backs of the working class. The world doesn’t actually need Jeff Bezos as much as he needs the world.

nverno 5y ago
What is the "working class" nowadays- just anyone who works?
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  people who labour for wages, rather than those who own capital and earn through profit. Loosely speaking, workers versus investors. Most people on this site would fit the middle class, where you have a foot in both sides.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    People often categorise themselves as middle class just because they have a decent job and a mortgage - they are in fact just labour. None of their income comes from capital. Middle class is mostly a myth, unless you can quit your job and maintain your lifestyle, you are labour, not capital.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      yes, middle class is typically just well-off working class, but with some investments or savings that generate profit for them. I think technically, middle class is associated with small business owners and the self-employed who both own capital, and labour - but people with moderate investments who still work are also receiving capital gains; they're just not capitalist class because they still have to labour to survive.
      - nverno 5y ago
        here, when you say 'labour', you are referring specifically to working for wages then? Cause I imagine many investors/owners who make money from profit or capital still need to work, or labor, quite a lot. It sounds like basically the working class are people with bosses that aren't a board of directors.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        well, "working class" is a Marxist term and thus is defined relative to ownership of capital (means of production and the ability to acquire it). Practically everybody (in the economy) works, including capitalists; the division is whether you have to exchange your labour for your income by working for somebody else, or your income is from owning stuff (even if you're working on that stuff, like a founder owning and developing their software). Historically the "capital" would have been machinery or land, nowadays it's more ephemeral as the economy is increasingly financialised, virtualised and service-oriented.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      Looking at class in purely economic terms is blinkered, especially if you're doing so in an effort to define some sort of quasi-Marxist "us against them" narrative. (I say quasi-Marxist because even Marx was more sophisticated than this; he saw capitalists as a new upper class emerging from the burgher class and displacing the traditional aristocratic class.) Financial independence is a consequence of individual choices. Most workers can achieve financial independence by the time they are elderly. A surprising number of workers can achieve financial independence early, but choose not to. "None of their income comes from capital"? Slightly more than half of Americans own stock in one form or another, and I think it's rare for middle class people to have absolutely no investments at all. For the slight majority of Americans, some of their income comes from capital. But perhaps Americans are unusually enthusiastic about investment. When it comes to class, though, economics is not the whole picture. Class is more directly about social status, and social status is not wholly dictated by income. In the 1980's, Paul Fussell wrote a satirical book, titled Class, exploring this phenomenon. The specific examples are dated but the underlying concept remains somewhat valid.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        > Financial independence is a consequence of individual choices. Most workers can achieve financial independence by the time they are elderly. A surprising number of workers can achieve financial independence early, but choose not to. It's not /just/ a matter of individual choice though, is it? Somebody with poor earning potential living in a high cost-of-living area (say, a waiter in LA) is not going to be able to achieve financial independence in a lifetime of saved income, and simultaneously a trust fund child can be set for life despite being a complete waste of air. A person's prospects are much more environmental (dare I say, systemic?) than individual. Tell a fruit picker in Guatemala that they too can achieve FIRE status by picking themselves up by their bootstraps and eating less avocado toast, and they might respond with scepticism. > When it comes to class, though, economics is not the whole picture. Class is more directly about social status, and social status is not wholly dictated by income. The concept of working class, as contrasted with capitalist class, is defined in purely economic terms. Social class is basically a separate thing entirely, with "working class" as a social class being associated with blue-collar, salt-of-the-earth manual labourer types (at least here in the UK).

by moksly 5y ago

nverno 5y ago

What is the "working class" nowadays- just anyone who works?

beaconstudios 5y ago
people who labour for wages, rather than those who own capital and earn through profit. Loosely speaking, workers versus investors. Most people on this site would fit the middle class, where you have a foot in both sides.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  People often categorise themselves as middle class just because they have a decent job and a mortgage - they are in fact just labour. None of their income comes from capital. Middle class is mostly a myth, unless you can quit your job and maintain your lifestyle, you are labour, not capital.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    yes, middle class is typically just well-off working class, but with some investments or savings that generate profit for them. I think technically, middle class is associated with small business owners and the self-employed who both own capital, and labour - but people with moderate investments who still work are also receiving capital gains; they're just not capitalist class because they still have to labour to survive.
    - nverno 5y ago
      here, when you say 'labour', you are referring specifically to working for wages then? Cause I imagine many investors/owners who make money from profit or capital still need to work, or labor, quite a lot. It sounds like basically the working class are people with bosses that aren't a board of directors.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        well, "working class" is a Marxist term and thus is defined relative to ownership of capital (means of production and the ability to acquire it). Practically everybody (in the economy) works, including capitalists; the division is whether you have to exchange your labour for your income by working for somebody else, or your income is from owning stuff (even if you're working on that stuff, like a founder owning and developing their software). Historically the "capital" would have been machinery or land, nowadays it's more ephemeral as the economy is increasingly financialised, virtualised and service-oriented.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    Looking at class in purely economic terms is blinkered, especially if you're doing so in an effort to define some sort of quasi-Marxist "us against them" narrative. (I say quasi-Marxist because even Marx was more sophisticated than this; he saw capitalists as a new upper class emerging from the burgher class and displacing the traditional aristocratic class.) Financial independence is a consequence of individual choices. Most workers can achieve financial independence by the time they are elderly. A surprising number of workers can achieve financial independence early, but choose not to. "None of their income comes from capital"? Slightly more than half of Americans own stock in one form or another, and I think it's rare for middle class people to have absolutely no investments at all. For the slight majority of Americans, some of their income comes from capital. But perhaps Americans are unusually enthusiastic about investment. When it comes to class, though, economics is not the whole picture. Class is more directly about social status, and social status is not wholly dictated by income. In the 1980's, Paul Fussell wrote a satirical book, titled Class, exploring this phenomenon. The specific examples are dated but the underlying concept remains somewhat valid.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      > Financial independence is a consequence of individual choices. Most workers can achieve financial independence by the time they are elderly. A surprising number of workers can achieve financial independence early, but choose not to. It's not /just/ a matter of individual choice though, is it? Somebody with poor earning potential living in a high cost-of-living area (say, a waiter in LA) is not going to be able to achieve financial independence in a lifetime of saved income, and simultaneously a trust fund child can be set for life despite being a complete waste of air. A person's prospects are much more environmental (dare I say, systemic?) than individual. Tell a fruit picker in Guatemala that they too can achieve FIRE status by picking themselves up by their bootstraps and eating less avocado toast, and they might respond with scepticism. > When it comes to class, though, economics is not the whole picture. Class is more directly about social status, and social status is not wholly dictated by income. The concept of working class, as contrasted with capitalist class, is defined in purely economic terms. Social class is basically a separate thing entirely, with "working class" as a social class being associated with blue-collar, salt-of-the-earth manual labourer types (at least here in the UK).