Microblog Memes

Capitalist scum!

When the revolution comes, you will not be spared.

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.

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!"

.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 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.

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.

GET EMMMM!! WHERES MY GUILLOTINE!?

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

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.

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).

If you have no financial reserves, you are IMO poor or stupid. One of both.

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.

That was silly of her. I mean, look at you? Clearly nowhere near America. She should apologize to you.