3 ms·

Just because you work doesn't mean you're "middle class". If you're making $400k/year, you are upper class (on the income scale). $65k is the middle of "middle

Just because you work doesn't mean you're "middle class". If you're making $400k/year, you are upper class (on the income scale). $65k is the middle of "middle class".

seo-speedwagon 3y ago
Your definition of “class” seems to be a kind of vague proxy for “income”. The original comment was using a more accurate definition aligning more with a capital vs labor distinction: are you paid in wages or are you paid in profits?
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  "middle class" was the starting point of the discussion, with the poster trying to make believe that being a worker means you are middle class As I commented somewhere else, if you are making 400k a year and are not investing the surplus income as capital for someone else's business then you are probably not making good life decisions. You certainly are making enough to be a rentier
  - JeremyNT 3y ago
    It's a case of the terminology of "class" becoming muddled, which creates such divisions. "Middle class" is the wrong concept here - capital versus labor is what matters. Somebody in the labor class making that kind of money may be able to springboard themselves into the capital class by investment, but they aren't automatically there based solely on their income.
hedora 3y ago
The middle class has shrunk: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-a... See section 2. The trend is pretty clear: The upper class is transferring wealth from the middle class. So, demanding that firms cut wages on middle class workers has been standard practice for decades. They're running out of money to extract from there, so they're going after the bottom half of the uppe class next. I suggest joining a startup; investors that are willing to put cash into companies in times like this end up getting outsized returns on investment (since anyone that can leave the big companies does, the big company's R&D projects get cancelled during downturns, and general morale issues prevent minor product improvements from shipping). (Also, median of middle class is $90K, and median of upper is $219K. Lower class is $29K. If they broke upper class into 2-4 separate tiers, there'd also be a clear skew in wage growth toward the top of the upper class.)
- claytongulick 3y ago
  The TLDR of that article is that most of the "shrinking middle class" can be explained by changing demographics in the US - i.e. the country is getting older. Older people, pre-retirement, generally earn more then younger people. As it should be - they've spent their lives growing their net worth and gaining experience. Most "class warfare" can be explained by this - except that it doesn't get clickbait outrage reaction to say "older, experienced people are wealthier than young people starting their careers". It's much more exciting to skew charts and graphs to show massive wealth disparity, as if there's a sinister cabal of wealthy folks that for some reason don't want others to succeed. These charts are utterly meaningless if they aren't broken down by age group. You're putting someone who has 30+ years of career growth against someone out of high school and then screaming about wealth disparity. The article itself even points this out - they say most of the loss of money in middle income was made up for in the 45-65 year old bracket. After 65 (surprise) when folks are retired, this drops off. The issue isn't some sort of "class warfare" boogeyman. The issue is that we've made it damn near impossible to have a large family these days, and our population demographics are reflecting that, along with income. Also note: the article doesn't talk about absolute numbers or wealth. It's all percentile stuff. It's easy to play statistics tricks with that.
piva00 3y ago
If you depend on a salary to make ends meet you're working class. This further division of the working class into upper and lower classes based on income is just another method to implement divide-and-conquer by pitting workers against themselves. Yes, software engineers earn a lot more than other salaried professions, it does not mean that software engineers control the means of production. Until a salaried worker earn enough to become part of the capital class and not need to work anymore we are all part of the working class. Blue-collar/lower income workers might take offense in that, as they'd look at someone making US$200-400k/year as part of the elite, it does not mean that workers earning that shouldn't look at themselves as they are: workers, subjected to an elite class controlling the means of production and hence, their lives.
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  >If you depend on a salary to make ends meet you're working class. Then its a meaningless phrase
  - piva00 3y ago
    If you own capital (factories, businesses, capital investments) you don't depend on a salary, you're not working class... It's not meaningless, the division is pretty clear. Do you depend on an employer to afford your life? If you got disabled and couldn't work a single day again in your life, would you be able to afford it without stress? There it is, that's the meaning of "you depend on salary"... Edit: I also noticed that usually your comments don't really add much to discussions on HN, could you change that behaviour a little bit, please?
    - readthenotes1 3y ago
      The people that I know that own the means of production work extraordinarily hard. Long-term disability insurance has nothing to do with whether you are an owner or a worker, but whether you make enough money to afford the insurance premium - - and you can earn that money either by salary or dividends (and their proxies).
pjmlp 3y ago
Most software developers across the globe aren't doing FAANG salaries.

Just because you work doesn't mean you're "middle class". If you're making $400k/year, you are upper class (on the income scale). $65k is the middle of "middle class".

seo-speedwagon 3y ago

Your definition of “class” seems to be a kind of vague proxy for “income”. The original comment was using a more accurate definition aligning more with a capital vs labor distinction: are you paid in wages or are you paid in profits?

readthenotes1 3y ago
"middle class" was the starting point of the discussion, with the poster trying to make believe that being a worker means you are middle class As I commented somewhere else, if you are making 400k a year and are not investing the surplus income as capital for someone else's business then you are probably not making good life decisions. You certainly are making enough to be a rentier
- JeremyNT 3y ago
  It's a case of the terminology of "class" becoming muddled, which creates such divisions. "Middle class" is the wrong concept here - capital versus labor is what matters. Somebody in the labor class making that kind of money may be able to springboard themselves into the capital class by investment, but they aren't automatically there based solely on their income.

hedora 3y ago

The middle class has shrunk: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-a... See section 2. The trend is pretty clear: The upper class is transferring wealth from the middle class. So, demanding that firms cut wages on middle class workers has been standard practice for decades. They're running out of money to extract from there, so they're going after the bottom half of the uppe class next. I suggest joining a startup; investors that are willing to put cash into companies in times like this end up getting outsized returns on investment (since anyone that can leave the big companies does, the big company's R&D projects get cancelled during downturns, and general morale issues prevent minor product improvements from shipping). (Also, median of middle class is $90K, and median of upper is $219K. Lower class is $29K. If they broke upper class into 2-4 separate tiers, there'd also be a clear skew in wage growth toward the top of the upper class.)

claytongulick 3y ago
The TLDR of that article is that most of the "shrinking middle class" can be explained by changing demographics in the US - i.e. the country is getting older. Older people, pre-retirement, generally earn more then younger people. As it should be - they've spent their lives growing their net worth and gaining experience. Most "class warfare" can be explained by this - except that it doesn't get clickbait outrage reaction to say "older, experienced people are wealthier than young people starting their careers". It's much more exciting to skew charts and graphs to show massive wealth disparity, as if there's a sinister cabal of wealthy folks that for some reason don't want others to succeed. These charts are utterly meaningless if they aren't broken down by age group. You're putting someone who has 30+ years of career growth against someone out of high school and then screaming about wealth disparity. The article itself even points this out - they say most of the loss of money in middle income was made up for in the 45-65 year old bracket. After 65 (surprise) when folks are retired, this drops off. The issue isn't some sort of "class warfare" boogeyman. The issue is that we've made it damn near impossible to have a large family these days, and our population demographics are reflecting that, along with income. Also note: the article doesn't talk about absolute numbers or wealth. It's all percentile stuff. It's easy to play statistics tricks with that.

piva00 3y ago

If you depend on a salary to make ends meet you're working class. This further division of the working class into upper and lower classes based on income is just another method to implement divide-and-conquer by pitting workers against themselves. Yes, software engineers earn a lot more than other salaried professions, it does not mean that software engineers control the means of production. Until a salaried worker earn enough to become part of the capital class and not need to work anymore we are all part of the working class. Blue-collar/lower income workers might take offense in that, as they'd look at someone making US$200-400k/year as part of the elite, it does not mean that workers earning that shouldn't look at themselves as they are: workers, subjected to an elite class controlling the means of production and hence, their lives.

throwaway6734 3y ago
>If you depend on a salary to make ends meet you're working class. Then its a meaningless phrase
- piva00 3y ago
  If you own capital (factories, businesses, capital investments) you don't depend on a salary, you're not working class... It's not meaningless, the division is pretty clear. Do you depend on an employer to afford your life? If you got disabled and couldn't work a single day again in your life, would you be able to afford it without stress? There it is, that's the meaning of "you depend on salary"... Edit: I also noticed that usually your comments don't really add much to discussions on HN, could you change that behaviour a little bit, please?
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    The people that I know that own the means of production work extraordinarily hard. Long-term disability insurance has nothing to do with whether you are an owner or a worker, but whether you make enough money to afford the insurance premium - - and you can earn that money either by salary or dividends (and their proxies).

pjmlp 3y ago

Most software developers across the globe aren't doing FAANG salaries.