The point being made here is that it’s not about income, at least not directly.
It’s about whether or not you need to work for others for that income.
Petit bourgeoisie, the origin of what would become middle class, originally meant small business owner. This was to differentiate between the owners of massive factories and small shops.
The point is about taking absolutely valid class identifiers and trying to pretend they don’t exist is dumb. I haven’t said a damn thing for or against communism.
I haven’t said a damn thing for or against communism.
Neither have I.
valid class identifiers
I don’t know if that’s true. The modern definition of “middle class” is very fuzzy and poorly defined. Sometimes tertiary education is a requirement, sometimes not. Sometimes it’s about professional certification. Sometimes it’s about whether you’re a manager.
Even if you’re looking at a definition that only cares about income and nothing else, that’s still a pretty terrible definition. Cost of living is drastically different depending on where you are. Somebody in New York might be middle class, but lives like a member of the lower class compared to someone on that same income in Kansas.
If we then ignore income and only care about standard of living, does that mean someone living frugally and saving a lot of money becomes lower class due to their spartan lifestyle? Instinctively, that seems wrong.
EDIT: I should mention that I find the worker/small owner/owner distinction more useful than the lower/middle/upper distinction because it’s far better at figuring out who has interests that are aligned. Workers, generally, want higher wages. Small owners and owners are aligned on lower wages, but are not aligned on taxation and regulation. Interestingly, small owners and workers tend to be aligned on minimum wage for competitiveness reasons vs the owners.
The point being made here is that it’s not about income, at least not directly.
It’s about whether or not you need to work for others for that income.
Petit bourgeoisie, the origin of what would become middle class, originally meant small business owner. This was to differentiate between the owners of massive factories and small shops.
And so that means the other classes don’t exist?
Not in any real or useful sense, no.
The point is about taking absolutely valid class identifiers and trying to pretend they don’t exist is dumb. I haven’t said a damn thing for or against communism.
Neither have I.
I don’t know if that’s true. The modern definition of “middle class” is very fuzzy and poorly defined. Sometimes tertiary education is a requirement, sometimes not. Sometimes it’s about professional certification. Sometimes it’s about whether you’re a manager.
Even if you’re looking at a definition that only cares about income and nothing else, that’s still a pretty terrible definition. Cost of living is drastically different depending on where you are. Somebody in New York might be middle class, but lives like a member of the lower class compared to someone on that same income in Kansas.
If we then ignore income and only care about standard of living, does that mean someone living frugally and saving a lot of money becomes lower class due to their spartan lifestyle? Instinctively, that seems wrong.
EDIT: I should mention that I find the worker/small owner/owner distinction more useful than the lower/middle/upper distinction because it’s far better at figuring out who has interests that are aligned. Workers, generally, want higher wages. Small owners and owners are aligned on lower wages, but are not aligned on taxation and regulation. Interestingly, small owners and workers tend to be aligned on minimum wage for competitiveness reasons vs the owners.