I genuinely do not think that they are what Marx was describing as bourgeoisie. Quoth wikipedia: > In the 19th century, Marx distinguished two types of bourge

I genuinely do not think that they are what Marx was describing as bourgeoisie. Quoth wikipedia: > In the 19th century, Marx distinguished two types of bourgeois capitalist: (i) the functional capitalists, who are business administrators of the means of production; and (ii) rentier capitalists whose livelihoods derive either from the rent of property or from the interest-income produced by finance capital, or both. That is, managerial staff (low level managers better, these days, better fit the description of petit bourgeoisie, I think), and owners. Talking about a man who owns his own tools, employs himself but no others, you duck either category - perhaps you're thinking of someone who employs others and manages them, in which case, I agree, they've moved into the position of earning part of their income from management. But merely having the tools you need is not "the means of production" classically - that would be real estate and finance more than directly tools. You begin to cross that threshold when my hypothetical car repair or building maintenance guy also owns his shop (or building) and the land it's on - but even so, I think the distinguishing characteristic is not merely ownership of land and finances, but subsisting primarily on the rents and/or administration thereof. If my hypothetical car repair guy had retired, rented his shop out, and leased tools to people he employed, yes, obviously. But I think you'll find that many of the people who identify as business owners are, in this analysis, tradesmen and working men first and foremost, rather than earning their income primarily as administrators, rentiers, landlords, bankers, or lenders. That is why I distinguish between the two, and you may disagree, but it's certainly not moving the goalposts or sneering.