2 ms·

That's not strange is it? If you're making 100k+/year, you're well into bourgeois territory, and FAANG benefits are practically near-instant-owner-class. Why wo

by t-3 4y ago

That's not strange is it? If you're making 100k+/year, you're well into bourgeois territory, and FAANG benefits are practically near-instant-owner-class. Why would you expect anybody getting that kind of money to identify with the lower classes?

int_19h 4y ago
"Bourgeois" is not defined by how much you make per year. It's defined by your relationship to the means of production.
- t-3 4y ago
  Anyone getting paid 100k+ is also getting stock options.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Sure, and many people getting less still own stocks via 401(k) etc. The important question is whether a person can live entirely off their rents, or they have to work for someone else for a living.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> That's not strange is it? That depends on your baseline, of course. Or to answer your other question: > Why would you expect anybody getting that kind of money to identify with the lower classes? I don’t expect it, though I do have deep solidarity myself. Because, to return to the middle of your response: > If you're making 100k+/year, you're well into bourgeois territory, and FAANG benefits are practically near-instant-owner-class. I can speak to six figures, and I’m in no way into bourgeois territory. I’m approximately as comfortable as middle class boomers, ie I can make financial decisions to benefit my aging family with some hope I’ll still be comfortable myself. I don’t own anything in the sense meant by “bourgeois” in this context. I may yet, in the sense of a retirement plan. That’s a middle class aspiration. Which, having grown up poor and then broke and then getting by… I recognize very much is still working class. There certainly is a larger segment of the tech work force than the general population which has reason to believe it can cross the bridge from gentry to ownership… but it’s still a minority of us and it’s mostly scraps. I don’t expect most of my colleagues to be comrades, but I certainly don’t agree with their class analysis which you have expressed so clearly.

by t-3 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

"Bourgeois" is not defined by how much you make per year. It's defined by your relationship to the means of production.

t-3 4y ago
Anyone getting paid 100k+ is also getting stock options.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Sure, and many people getting less still own stocks via 401(k) etc. The important question is whether a person can live entirely off their rents, or they have to work for someone else for a living.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> That's not strange is it? That depends on your baseline, of course. Or to answer your other question: > Why would you expect anybody getting that kind of money to identify with the lower classes? I don’t expect it, though I do have deep solidarity myself. Because, to return to the middle of your response: > If you're making 100k+/year, you're well into bourgeois territory, and FAANG benefits are practically near-instant-owner-class. I can speak to six figures, and I’m in no way into bourgeois territory. I’m approximately as comfortable as middle class boomers, ie I can make financial decisions to benefit my aging family with some hope I’ll still be comfortable myself. I don’t own anything in the sense meant by “bourgeois” in this context. I may yet, in the sense of a retirement plan. That’s a middle class aspiration. Which, having grown up poor and then broke and then getting by… I recognize very much is still working class. There certainly is a larger segment of the tech work force than the general population which has reason to believe it can cross the bridge from gentry to ownership… but it’s still a minority of us and it’s mostly scraps. I don’t expect most of my colleagues to be comrades, but I certainly don’t agree with their class analysis which you have expressed so clearly.