11mo ago

Dont get it twisted.

208 comments

After years of working and saving, I can now afford to miss ONE paycheck. I'm no longer poor! /s
- Capitalist scum!
  
  Fuck outta here with your weak-ass bones!
- When the revolution comes, you will not be spared.

Lots of people in here fighting about what "working class" means. If you have to work to survive (other than minor household chores), you're working class. If you have enough money, or assets that you get dividends from or can borrow against, or passive income so you don't need a regular employment then you probably aren't working class.
Working Poor isn't as common and definition varies a lot.
- This is it, it’s super simple.
  If I dialed back everything, I could probably live a few years off my savings/investments, and selling some stuff. But I would be just burning trough my money, and I would need to go back to work eventually. So I’m still working class, even if I’m in a luckier situation than most people.
- I feel like there is a world in between of these two
  
  There really isn't. Each group has a wider pay rate than maybe is implied, but functionally, there isn't a role in capitalism between them. Wealthy people want us to think there is a wide range of classes so we argue with each other instead of cooperating against them.
  
  That's what they want you to think. If we're infighting, we're not outfighting.
- Oh I think working poor is pretty easy to define. If you work full time (or equivalent at multiple jobs) and you're not able to pay your bills without government assistance then you're the working poor.
  
  But you can be working poor and not in those conditions

What I find interesting is how often statements like this that are trying to unify the working class (or whatever you end up calling it) just derails into semantics instead of actually people bringing out the pitchforks and shouting "eat the rich"
We are all fucked.
- Amongst the little mice fighting under the table for crumbs falling from the cake being divided above, once in a while one finds a slightly larger crumb, proudly raises it over his head and shouts: "See?! The system woks!"
- Fuxking right?!
- Which sounds like the statement wasn't well crafted

"But through my retirement I own .000000001% of a company!"
Having stock in a company doesn't make you a capitalist anymore than checking out a bible from the library makes you a Christian.
- .000000001% of a $100 billion company is $1. The average person could own per year $5000 if they used automatic deposits and got the employer match.
  I know you are trying to exaggerate to make a point, but don't discourage people from getting the employer match if they can.
  
  I employee matched for years just to watch our CEO tank our stock to 1/5 the original price.
  Point being, remember it's still an investment in a single stock and comes with that amount of risk.

10,000 seconds = 2.8 hours
100,000 seconds = 1.2 days
1,000,000 seconds = 11.6 days
10,000,000 seconds = 116 days
100,000,000 seconds = 3 years
1,000,000,000 seconds = 32 years
Don't be fooled. It's billionaires against everyone else. Even multimillionaires are closer to the everyday person. The working class consists of two groups: those without disposable income (nominally those with "hours" in income), and those with some disposable income (days in income).
If they ain't got a "year" in income, their they're one of us.
- I think it's better to think of it like this:
  How do you make your money? Do you need to make a wage? Or can you let your property (land, buildings, stocks, etc.) be your income?
  The real amount doesn't matter, it's whether you have to work to live or not.
  If you have to work, you are the working class. If you don't, you are the owner/capitalist class. But your analysis is still somewhat correct: millionaires and small business owners are closer to the working class than billionaires, it does still matter how they make it though.
  
  I think I generally agree, yeah. There's something to be said too for if your money is made by owning or by maintaining. I don't give a shit about landlords who rent shit out and do nothing else, but I think building administrators who fix issues and handle maintenance are probably working class.
  Comes back to what you were saying. Do you make money through labor, or through ownership?
- Modern America is like Tsarist Russia. A tiny elite, a small 'middle class,' and a vast army of poor people.
- It's generally considered safe to withdraw 4% of your nest egg each year. Someone with 2 million can support an 80k/year retirement.
  The average multimillionaire is literally just any person with a six figure salary who has been saving for retirement and is nearing retirement. You basically can't retire without at least being a millionaire.
  
  Yeah the big difference is now much it takes to amass that money. If we have a capitalist system, there's nothing wrong with workers saving money to retire with a few million.

What if I can miss two paychecks? Super-rich, or?
- GET EMMMM!! WHERES MY GUILLOTINE!?

Yeah people don’t believe me when i say middle class is 300k because they want to be middle class
- A person making 300k can still be working class. Unless you own capital that makes enough money for you to live off, you are working class
  
  Exactly. It's how you make your money, not how much you make.
  
  That’s not the commonly accepted definition of working or middle class. Middle class has never meant “don’t have to work to live”.
  In the U.S. the differences have always been defined by income level. Depending on the context, working class has also been used to mean someone working a blue collar non-salary job without a college degree.
  I don’t think anyone has ever seriously defined a college educated person making over a quarter million a year “working class”.
  
  Okay but they can easily invest 2/3rds of that for a decade and then live off the dividends. That's not middle class or working class.
- I think 150k (ish) in my city would be solidly middle class. You could buy a house/car/retire on that.
  I'm in a super weird spot, because I make good enough money that I have savings to support me after job loss, and I make enough money that I don't really have to worry about my grocery bill (within reason). Heck, there's even a chance that I'll be able to have a decent retirement.
  But a house? Not happening. New car? No chance. Even eating out every week isn't viable. And even what I have is only because I have a pretty sweet rent situation.
- That's ridiculous. Middle class is absolutely part of the working class. It starts around 70k for a single income in a rural area. And 120k for double income in a high cost area.
  
  Who in those income brackets can afford their house, car, and vacations?
  600k for a rural house, 5% mortgage is 30k
  1.5m in urban, 5% mortgage is 75k
  Car is 20-40k
  Food is 16k/year
  30+20+16= 66 out of 70 but you aren’t buying a new car every year
  So let’s say you’re spending 1.8/L on it and going 20 000km per year. CX-5 is 8.2L per 100
  I believe that’s 1640L so an expense of 2952
  Our number then is 30+2.952+16 for simplicity we will just say 49
  So we have 21k left, for heating I found it cost 3840, again round up to 4 so we have 17k
  I know what you’re thinking what about tax?
  Property tax we will go cheap with 1% because we rounded the other things up. 6k
  Now we have 11k
  Income tax?
  Thats 12 333 but we will round down to 12k
  We are now -1k
  Yearly vacation that you take if you’re middle class? Let’s say 5k
  We are now -6k
  there are more expenses of course but you get the idea

That's an American point of view. Here in Britain there are pretty much only two main classes: aristocracy and dirty peasants. Doesn't matter what you do and how rich you are, if your ancestors didn't sit at the round table - you're a peasant.
- There are 4 in the UK.
  The upper class aka the aristocracy. Born into money and titles.
  Middle class. Rich enough to live purely off their investments, don't need to work, but also don't the the old blood titles.
  *Upper working class (what the media likes calling the middle class). Lives well, but reliant on a job income.
  Lower working class (what the media likes calling working class). Lives paycheck to paycheck and has to trade luxuries off to make ends meet.
  The bottom 2 are peasants. The 2nd are "vaguely acceptable breeding stock/upstart peasants.
  
  *Upper working class (what the media likes calling the middle class)
  It's useful, because it more accurately matches what the rest of the world means when they say "middle class". It's always weird watching British panel shows and the like when I hear someone refer to someone as being "so middle class" as a synonym for "so posh". Because here, it has basically the opposite meaning.
  
  I don't think most people would restrict "middle class" to only those who can live off their investments.
  We have a much more complicated relationship with class in the UK which is not well reflected by the language we use, that's certainly true. We often determine what class someone "is" by their social status and cultural interests moreso than the Marxist way. I read an article some time ago which identified 7 classes separated both by cultural and economic capital... This is closer to the reality in the UK imo.
- I don't think that's true. There's definitely the three classes, but many people believe they're middle class when they're not.
  It's basically impossible to become upper class. I think I read somewhere that it takes 3 or 4 successive generations at somewhere like Eton to be considered upper class.

ITT: lots of people making very concrete statements about cost of living that somehow apply equally to every single city in the US at the same time

Middle class was originally defined as a class that gets at least some significant percent of their income from stocks bonds and other investments. I'm willing to bet that ain't you.
- Is this a definition common in a specific country outside the U.S.? I see this claim in multiple places in the thread, but that's not how it has been historically defined in the U.S. or in France where the term originated. Middle class in the original context evolved out of the mercantile class that traded goods in cities - neither aristocrat nor serf - during the middle ages. That original definition had nothing to do with investments.
  
  Does it not? Maybe the definition of investments has expanded to include more abstract things like stock in a company, but still a merchant needs to invest in goods that they then sell. Which now that i think about it is also called stock...
- Technically that's anyone with a pension or decent retirement account.
  
  So no one under 50?

That's a definition of "working class" but not generally what people outside certain academic contexts mean when they say that phrase; using the more common definition does not indicate "confusion about your class status."
- As with many terms describing social class, working class is defined and used in many different ways. One definition, used by many socialists, is that the working class includes all those who have nothing to sell but their labour. These people used to be referred to as the proletariat. In that sense, the working class today includes both white and blue-collar workers, manual and menial workers of all types, excluding only individuals who derive their livelihood from business ownership and the labour of others.
  Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how the OP differs in this definition. If you HAVE to work to survive, you aren't earning a livelihood from ownership and the labor of others (passive income).
  
  So the poor CEO making a few million a year who is only selling his labor to the company, is working class. The guy who retired at 70 is upper class because he's living off his investments
- Buying into strategic labour divisions perpetuated by the ownership class for their benefit does not convey a comprehension of the language.
  
  Yeah, insisting on using a nonstandard definition exclusive to a tiny minority of speakers, so that you can then talk past your interlocutor, wasting both of your time until they finally realize you're intentionally being an uncooperative speaker, makes way more sense. 🙄
  I guess at least this way you get to feel a smug, undeserved sense of superiority in the process though, so who's to say which way is really better.

Workers work because they have to. Owners own and work if they want to.

I can afford to miss a paycheck. In fact, I'm currently planning for a four month stretch where I'll need to live off of savings. Thinking that I, with my 11 year old honda fit, 10 year old PC, and my 2 roommates, am in the top 20% of this stat is very alarming.
- Man, if I could split my living expenses with TWO other people? 🤤 Currently I'm paying them for 2 kids and a husband (who recently wrecked our only car).
- I almost quit my job after Christmas because they canceled my holiday time off without any work for me to do. I was just going to live off of savings while looking for a job, but the job market is so weird right now I decided to power through it

I work paycheck to paycheck but if I told people how much I made and called myself poor I'd probably anger people. I just make sure that I do what's in my power to keep myself comfortable now, even if that means overspending on luxuries
- If you have no financial reserves, you are IMO poor or stupid. One of both.
  
  Which are you?
  Edit: I’m going to go with both.
- Being comfortable does not require luxuries or overspending.
  
  I stress quite quickly so I spend money to avoid stress. Stuff like cooking, cleaning, variable bills I am happy to pay a premium on so they don't affect my everyday
- how much do you make though

I like how things are defaulting to the US as if that's the whole world.
- She's probably American and talking about America. We shouldn't have to qualify every single thing we say, if it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply. It's certainly worthwhile to the discussion to add your own experiences in places it doesn't apply, but just pointing out that she didn't explicitly say she's talking about America (even though she very nearly did) isn't super relevant.
- I'm dead sure the traffic Lemmy instances overall see have America as the top country.
  
  Looks like every single international online space, not just Lemmy, is somehow dominated by Americans.
  Do Americans exist outside Internet?
  
  That's not the point
- It's probably equally slanted towards your country if we all got on their network your country invented

Bold of you to assume I'm American.
- That was silly of her. I mean, look at you? Clearly nowhere near America. She should apologize to you.
  
  Still I incline on agree that Internet got super America-centric
  There's over 96% of people living outside land of the free, can we talk about it for a second?
- Maybe she wasn’t talking to you though.

I disagree. You are NOT poor just because you end up without money at the months end.
My brother is an perfect example. He earns A TON of cash every month. Nearly as much as I, my fiance, my Dad and Mum combined.
And still he lives from payday to payday without any reserves. Because he can not handle money.
He eats in restaurants at least ten times a week. At least twice in highest luxury restaurants. He has leased four different cars in three years, none less than €2000 per month. Lifes in an absurdetly huge penthouse. Buys his girl friend so much bullshit she gave me a €5.000 collier because she ran out of space and I drove her home after parties a couple of times. But still he asked Pa and me several times for fuel money at the end of the month.
See, if he would live like I do he could live two years from one months earnings.
So you think I am poor I guess?
Nope. I own a huge plot of land. I am going to build my own house and I am talking about a nice big house made from stone at the gates of Munich where land is expensive and houses are even more expensive. I have paid generous amounts of pension insurance. If I would stop working in five years when I am 35 I would be a made girl and could live from my savings although on a low level.
- So he can absolutely afford to miss at least one paycheck, he just doesn't want to.
- This is really irrelevant. He obviously can miss a paycheck. He is rich, so if he says "I'll pay you next month" to anyone, they go "sure". Even if that doesn't work, he can just sell a piece of jewelry. This is just an elaborate version of the "avocado toast" trope.
- If that is how he spends than he can clearly afford to miss a paycheck. Its not the same as having spend it all.
  When you cant ask the landlord to pay rent next month because you already had to ask last month is when you cant afford to miss it.
  It would really suck for your borther and he wont keep up the lifestyle but at the end of that month when the next paycheck does arrive he is going to be just fine.
  Multiple restaurants in a week sounds like he can afford to let someone else manage his money and still have enough pocketmoney for his vices. He should Look into it.
  
  You have no idea how hard it is to get rid of an unwilling renter as a landlord in Germany. In the event of rent arrears of two months' rent or more, the landlord can terminate the lease without notice. Only then can he or she file an action for eviction which can take another two to four months. And if the tenant only pays the arrears for one month, the cycle starts all over again. I have seen people dragging this out for five years and when leaving the premise they left behind a battlefield. And absurdetly I am not even allowed to burn or sell their shit because it is still their properties so I have to store it, show it to a bailiff for evaluation, sell the few things worth anything, then store it for another two years and only then I am legally allowed to burn it.
  (And yes, my brother missed his rent a couple of times but always caught up after one or two months. Given how expensive rents in Germany are we are not talking about small sums. A 1960th 84m² apartment in a suburb is around €1500, a 1870th 70m² apartment in the centre of munich is around €3500 per month. The penthouse my brother lives in... just short of five digits. If he ever gets seriously sick he will go broke within two months and will take decades to pay of the debts. Again, he has no long term insurrances, no savings, nothing at all. And social wellfare and social health care of a couple of €100 will only bring him so far...)
- Being irresponsible wasn’t the topic.
  Either person doesn’t need a tonne of money to survive. Not that they aren't using it to survive.

Image Transcription: Twitter Post
AshleyStevens, @The_Acumen
Too many of you are confused about your class status. If you can't afford to miss a paycheck, you're the working poor, and part of the 80% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. If you HAVE to wark to survive, you're working class.

At least you've got class.

Not when health insurance is a fixed cost and retirement savings match is a percentage. People needing more money have it better than people making less.

Good meme

And Elon musk does not represent you. Stop talking like his fight is your fight. We’re not all in this together.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151006183427/https:/michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/
- Whoa.
  It's an interesting take on classism in the US, and it's certainly compelling. But a lot of the claims here, most notably the population percentages, have no supporting citations or research.
  If nothing else, the idea that society is stratified on two axes based on income and social values, is kind of brilliant.
  Looks like this was purged from his blog along with everything before 2013. Makes me wonder if the author himself moved on from this idea: https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/

Why do we keep trying to pervert defined terms?
The working poor are those who work at least 27 weeks a year and still have income below the poverty line.
- Because that definition is woefully inadequate to describe the conditions of people experiencing poverty.
  
  I’m not sure how broadening it to include like half the country helps them?
  Lots of people live paycheck to paycheck because they have to - other people live paycheck to paycheck because they want to drive a BMW and have a house 50% larger they can afford. They’re not the same.

80% are not living paycheck to paycheck
- Cite?
  
  Yes, the person making the claim that 80% live paycheck to paycheck should cite
  
  His citation is a forbes survey saying 40% (riddled with selection bias)
- Based on vibes or what?
  
  The person who makes the claim should prove it first
- you're also not the working poor if you live paycheck to paycheck and make 150k/year. you just fucking aren't, it's your own fault you're not saving money at that point
  
  This is the problem with consumerism. Most American households do live with very little savings. Even people with really high income do this. It's culturally normal and encouraged with all the advertising to buy more stuff.
  A doctor earning over $300,000 a year in the Midwest should but under any circumstances be considered the working poor simply because they don't have any savings.
  
  HCOL
- Some more accurate data from Forbes:
  40,74% living with nothing left over after monthly expenses
  29,13% more unable to cover their surprise expenses
  30,13% able to actually accumulate and save
  https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/survey-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/

We have class system now again?
- always did
- Don't be fooled, there has always been a class system in every society. Some choose to formalize it, but the best ones pretend it doesn't exist and dangle the illusion of social mobility.

Having to work to survive is the default state of nature, unless you are a baby or an elder. It doesn't mean you're oppressed.
- What about our modern world makes you think humanity exsists in a default state of nature?
  
  We don't live in a post-scarcity society, so the rules of nature still apply. People need food, water, shelter, energy and someone has to work to provide those things.
- And yet, there's a class, that neither me or you belong to, who dosen't need to work a day of their life to survive.
  
  Sounds like a parasite. We're supposed to kill those, right?
  
  And yet many of them do anyway. And what percent of that class has never worked a day in their life? Most of them probably have years or decades of experience in their career and had to work hard to get to where they're at.
- I think we're lumping different kinds of "work" here. But even if we accept the premise, what would that say about people who who don't need to work? Are they unnatural?

208 comments