A lot of people in upper middle class choose to work to accumulate more wealth. And “as a way to exert power” is may be true for some, but not for all of them.
So what’s “possible”? You mean could they take a 1/50th pay cut and survive on like 30k a year from their investments? Possibly. That certainly doesn’t make them “owning class” though
This is a really stupid distinction to take a stand on. There’s no single line where, once you cross, you “no longer need to work”. Someone making high 6 figures a year is clearly not in the same situation as someone who has multiple billions, and they’re clearly not the same situation as someone working minimum wage. That’s exactly why the middle class definition is important and meaningful
This is a really stupid distinction to take a stand on.
I’d like to politely ask you to cut out the insults.
There’s no single line where, once you cross, you “no longer need to work”.
That’s the thing about classification: It doesn’t respect the edges, where it’s pretty much always getting fuzzy.
Someone making high 6 figures a year is clearly not in the same situation as someone who has multiple billions, and they’re clearly not the same situation as someone working minimum wage.
Here, it gets complicated: Since it’s highly incentivised by capitalism to invest your capital, most “upper middle class” people don’t actually have all that money sitting in a bank somewhere. It’s usually invested somewhere which makes them (partial) rent-seekers and extractors of other people’s surplus value. This is where the edges get fuzzy.
However, adding a cathegory of middle class, while vaguely pointing in a general socio-economic direction isn’t helpful for discussions about capitalism. The broad strokes of capitalist and wage-dependent class still stands. And adding further distinctions could help understanding a more gomplex model. But it’s never used this way. Whenever you hear someone talk about some “middle class”, 80% of the time, it’s about populism and not about some deeper economic analysis. And if it’s used for populism, it’s always used to divide the wage-dependant/working class.
That’s exactly why the middle class definition is important and meaningful
Can you give a coherent definition of middle class? I’-e never come across one that makes sense.
Can you give a coherent definition of middle class? I’-e never come across one that makes sense.
It’s someone for whom money isn’t a daily concern, but is still a resource that can run out. They might have to plan for their yearly vacation, or have to discuss the next car purchase, but wouldn’t have a problem buying things or eating out. If you’re looking for a more specific definition of “makes below $$$” then you’re not going to get it, because that’s not how any of this works.
Since it’s highly incentivised by capitalism to invest your capital, most “upper middle class” people don’t actually have all that money sitting in a bank somewhere. It’s usually invested somewhere which makes them (partial) rent-seekers and extractors of other people’s surplus value.
This is why you people will never actually get anything useful accomplished in society. You’re so intent on fighting against human nature, and playing victim of “exploited surplus labor value” that you simply can’t understand that there IS value in capital investment risk. It’s simply not the case that 1 unit of labor = 1 unit of money.
So you admit that you don’t have an accurate definition. That’s a shame.
that’s not how any of this works.
I beg to differ. The whole concept o class analysis doesn’t make any sense, if you have these wobbly definitions of classes.
This is why you people will never actually get anything useful accomplished in society.
Lol. Please read a history book.
You’re so intent on fighting against human nature
I think I have a more thorough grasp on “human nature” than you do. That’s the whole deal of anarchists (Kropotkin, Graeber, Bookchin, …).
Capitalists don’t take investment risks anymore. Surplus value is a model that’s used to describe a system. I don’t make the mistake or confusing the model with reality.
So you admit that you don’t have an accurate definition. That’s a shame.
This is the exact same stupid argument that conservatives use when the answer to “what is a woman” is “it’s complicated”. Some things don’t have neat, concise, 1 sentence definitions
The rest of your post is not really a response to anything I wrote. I have read plenty of history books. And you saying capitalists don’t take investment risk is just baffling tbh
This is the exact same stupid argument that conservatives use when the answer to “what is a woman” is “it’s complicated”.
Apples and oranges. We’re doing class analysis here, not gender studies. The former is an exercise in modelling, the latter describes complex societal distributed systems.
The rest of your post is not really a response to anything I wrote.
I have written that you’ve got a wrong grasp on class analysis. You’ve not demonstrated that you’ve understood class analysis.
And you saying capitalists don’t take investment risk is just baffling tbh
As soon as you got your first billion, you pretty @uch can’t lose it anymore on the market. Look at Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc. And they haven’t even invested their own capital to grow their empires. Entrepreneurial risks my ass.
Edit: I just realized how you just tried to weazel out of the discussion. You’ve brought up “human nature” and I refuted your argument. Claiming I didn’t doesn’t make you less wrong about human nature.
And “people like me” never getting anything done: There have been countless liberatory revolutions in history. Apparently, all the boks you’ve supposedly read left that bit out.
As soon as you got your first billion, you pretty @uch can’t lose it anymore on the market.
We not talking about billionaires. That’s the whole point. You’re so focused on “class analysis” and fitting into your predefined terms that you can’t even see that the whole point of the discussion is that there’s not a clear delineation between classes, which is precisely why “middle class” is important.
You’ve brought up “human nature” and I refuted your argument
A lot of people in upper middle class choose to work to accumulate more wealth. And “as a way to exert power” is may be true for some, but not for all of them.
If living off of your assets without working is possible to you you are not working class. It’s that simple.
So what’s “possible”? You mean could they take a 1/50th pay cut and survive on like 30k a year from their investments? Possibly. That certainly doesn’t make them “owning class” though
No what makes them owning class is because they own their means of income, they don’t have to work for it.
So what about people who have some investments but also still have to work? Or whose standard of living would seriously decline if they did not work?
Those are trans owners.
Then they’re the owning class. The middle class has no coherent definition AFAIK.
It’s probably true for most of them. Accumulating more wealth to buy a house to rent out counts as accumulating power to exert it as a rent-seeker.
This is a really stupid distinction to take a stand on. There’s no single line where, once you cross, you “no longer need to work”. Someone making high 6 figures a year is clearly not in the same situation as someone who has multiple billions, and they’re clearly not the same situation as someone working minimum wage. That’s exactly why the middle class definition is important and meaningful
I’d like to politely ask you to cut out the insults.
That’s the thing about classification: It doesn’t respect the edges, where it’s pretty much always getting fuzzy.
Here, it gets complicated: Since it’s highly incentivised by capitalism to invest your capital, most “upper middle class” people don’t actually have all that money sitting in a bank somewhere. It’s usually invested somewhere which makes them (partial) rent-seekers and extractors of other people’s surplus value. This is where the edges get fuzzy.
However, adding a cathegory of middle class, while vaguely pointing in a general socio-economic direction isn’t helpful for discussions about capitalism. The broad strokes of capitalist and wage-dependent class still stands. And adding further distinctions could help understanding a more gomplex model. But it’s never used this way. Whenever you hear someone talk about some “middle class”, 80% of the time, it’s about populism and not about some deeper economic analysis. And if it’s used for populism, it’s always used to divide the wage-dependant/working class.
Can you give a coherent definition of middle class? I’-e never come across one that makes sense.
It’s someone for whom money isn’t a daily concern, but is still a resource that can run out. They might have to plan for their yearly vacation, or have to discuss the next car purchase, but wouldn’t have a problem buying things or eating out. If you’re looking for a more specific definition of “makes below $$$” then you’re not going to get it, because that’s not how any of this works.
This is why you people will never actually get anything useful accomplished in society. You’re so intent on fighting against human nature, and playing victim of “exploited surplus labor value” that you simply can’t understand that there IS value in capital investment risk. It’s simply not the case that 1 unit of labor = 1 unit of money.
So you admit that you don’t have an accurate definition. That’s a shame.
I beg to differ. The whole concept o class analysis doesn’t make any sense, if you have these wobbly definitions of classes.
Lol. Please read a history book.
I think I have a more thorough grasp on “human nature” than you do. That’s the whole deal of anarchists (Kropotkin, Graeber, Bookchin, …).
Capitalists don’t take investment risks anymore. Surplus value is a model that’s used to describe a system. I don’t make the mistake or confusing the model with reality.
This is the exact same stupid argument that conservatives use when the answer to “what is a woman” is “it’s complicated”. Some things don’t have neat, concise, 1 sentence definitions
The rest of your post is not really a response to anything I wrote. I have read plenty of history books. And you saying capitalists don’t take investment risk is just baffling tbh
Apples and oranges. We’re doing class analysis here, not gender studies. The former is an exercise in modelling, the latter describes complex societal distributed systems.
I have written that you’ve got a wrong grasp on class analysis. You’ve not demonstrated that you’ve understood class analysis.
As soon as you got your first billion, you pretty @uch can’t lose it anymore on the market. Look at Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc. And they haven’t even invested their own capital to grow their empires. Entrepreneurial risks my ass.
Edit: I just realized how you just tried to weazel out of the discussion. You’ve brought up “human nature” and I refuted your argument. Claiming I didn’t doesn’t make you less wrong about human nature.
And “people like me” never getting anything done: There have been countless liberatory revolutions in history. Apparently, all the boks you’ve supposedly read left that bit out.
We not talking about billionaires. That’s the whole point. You’re so focused on “class analysis” and fitting into your predefined terms that you can’t even see that the whole point of the discussion is that there’s not a clear delineation between classes, which is precisely why “middle class” is important.
In what way have you refuted anything?
Do you have money in the bank? That brings you some rate? Then by your definition you are “speaking to exert power”
Are you telling me that I’m not dependant on my wage?
Did you really just call the richtest man in the world upper middle class?