3 ms·

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 ju

by 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).
    - piva00 3y ago
      > The people that I know that own the means of production work extraordinarily hard. This is not the point I'm making. > 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). Of course you can buy insurance, again, this is not the point I'm making, it's an analogy to the point of: do you depend on someone employing you, and paying you, to live (and have a meaningful life somehow)? You can only pay insurance if you are earning money, usually through a salary...
  - throwaway6734 3y ago
    It's meaningless in that it doesn't describe a societal division that actually matters. A retail worker making 40k a year is not going to identify with a highly paid software engineer. Their life stresses are worlds apart as is their level of financial security. You're the one trying to divide and conquer by pushing an abstract, out of touch political ideology that has resulted in the deaths of millions >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? Right back at you comrade!
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      It's not a societal division, it's an economic division, and one that very much matters, more so every day. What happens when automation eliminates a job? The ownership class (who are making their money off of owning the means of production) get a massive boost to profits. Labor loses their livelihood. You might be able to make a compelling argument that, as the people pushing that automation forward, high-paid software developers are class traitors, like cops. But cops are still working class, even if they're being paid to betray their own and others in their class's interests.
    - piva00 3y ago
      > It's meaningless in that it doesn't describe a societal division that actually matters. A retail worker making 40k a year is not going to identify with a highly paid software engineer. Their life stresses are worlds apart as is their level of financial security. They won't but the software engineer should identify with the plights of the worker making 40k. That's the issue, quite a lot of SWEs and other high income professions see themselves as separate from the working class. > You're the one trying to divide and conquer by pushing an abstract, out of touch political ideology that has resulted in the deaths of millions I'm not pushing socialism, talking about class warfare does not mean I'm a communist, stop that line of thinking as you are assuming something I have not said. At no point in my comments I've mentioned communism or socialism, I use their terms since it's a good analysis of the powers of capital, that's all. This knee-jerk reaction to some terms is absolutely ridiculous and taints your comment, from that you derived I'm somehow a communist and your only retort is talking about "the deaths of millions" caused by it. Capitalism has also contributed to the death and injury of hundreds of millions. That's not the fucking point... > Right back at you comrade! "No, you" stops being a retort you can use by 4th grade, again I insist: be a better contributor to discussions, so far you haven't done much.
armitron 3y ago
> 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. I was making 400k/year at one time, I also had a few million dollars (that I earned by being "working class" in SV) invested in the S&P500. Which is why your argument has no merit. I could have stopped being "working class" with a 400k/year salary any time I wanted and lived from my investments but I didn't. I kept being "working class" in SV and I ended up growing my compensation package to nearly 1 million dollars a year. That's what being "working class" in SV can amount to. But please try to convince me that I should take to the streets with my working-class brethren that work at Starbucks because I'm being exploited by the elites.
- piva00 3y ago
  That's not the point. > Which is why your argument has no merit. I could have stopped being "working class" with a 400k/year salary any time I wanted and lived from my investments but I didn't. You owned capital investments that kept you comfortable without the need to be exploited, at that point you crossed the class division from worker to a capitalist. You said it yourself... I picked the 200-400k range because it's been thrown around on this thread, that compensation is far away for most of SWEs in the world. Of course if you earn that and invest (and thus becoming a capitalist) you can be free from exploitation. Most workers, even SWEs, in the world cannot cross that chasm. You are a capitalist, not working class. You just choose to work.

by piva00 3y ago

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).
  - piva00 3y ago
    > The people that I know that own the means of production work extraordinarily hard. This is not the point I'm making. > 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). Of course you can buy insurance, again, this is not the point I'm making, it's an analogy to the point of: do you depend on someone employing you, and paying you, to live (and have a meaningful life somehow)? You can only pay insurance if you are earning money, usually through a salary...
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  It's meaningless in that it doesn't describe a societal division that actually matters. A retail worker making 40k a year is not going to identify with a highly paid software engineer. Their life stresses are worlds apart as is their level of financial security. You're the one trying to divide and conquer by pushing an abstract, out of touch political ideology that has resulted in the deaths of millions >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? Right back at you comrade!
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    It's not a societal division, it's an economic division, and one that very much matters, more so every day. What happens when automation eliminates a job? The ownership class (who are making their money off of owning the means of production) get a massive boost to profits. Labor loses their livelihood. You might be able to make a compelling argument that, as the people pushing that automation forward, high-paid software developers are class traitors, like cops. But cops are still working class, even if they're being paid to betray their own and others in their class's interests.
  - piva00 3y ago
    > It's meaningless in that it doesn't describe a societal division that actually matters. A retail worker making 40k a year is not going to identify with a highly paid software engineer. Their life stresses are worlds apart as is their level of financial security. They won't but the software engineer should identify with the plights of the worker making 40k. That's the issue, quite a lot of SWEs and other high income professions see themselves as separate from the working class. > You're the one trying to divide and conquer by pushing an abstract, out of touch political ideology that has resulted in the deaths of millions I'm not pushing socialism, talking about class warfare does not mean I'm a communist, stop that line of thinking as you are assuming something I have not said. At no point in my comments I've mentioned communism or socialism, I use their terms since it's a good analysis of the powers of capital, that's all. This knee-jerk reaction to some terms is absolutely ridiculous and taints your comment, from that you derived I'm somehow a communist and your only retort is talking about "the deaths of millions" caused by it. Capitalism has also contributed to the death and injury of hundreds of millions. That's not the fucking point... > Right back at you comrade! "No, you" stops being a retort you can use by 4th grade, again I insist: be a better contributor to discussions, so far you haven't done much.

armitron 3y ago

> 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. I was making 400k/year at one time, I also had a few million dollars (that I earned by being "working class" in SV) invested in the S&P500. Which is why your argument has no merit. I could have stopped being "working class" with a 400k/year salary any time I wanted and lived from my investments but I didn't. I kept being "working class" in SV and I ended up growing my compensation package to nearly 1 million dollars a year. That's what being "working class" in SV can amount to. But please try to convince me that I should take to the streets with my working-class brethren that work at Starbucks because I'm being exploited by the elites.

piva00 3y ago
That's not the point. > Which is why your argument has no merit. I could have stopped being "working class" with a 400k/year salary any time I wanted and lived from my investments but I didn't. You owned capital investments that kept you comfortable without the need to be exploited, at that point you crossed the class division from worker to a capitalist. You said it yourself... I picked the 200-400k range because it's been thrown around on this thread, that compensation is far away for most of SWEs in the world. Of course if you earn that and invest (and thus becoming a capitalist) you can be free from exploitation. Most workers, even SWEs, in the world cannot cross that chasm. You are a capitalist, not working class. You just choose to work.