• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    17
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    And in the real world there is a huge difference between 30k and 250k a year. Made up 🤣

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      264 months ago

      I think the point is if either gets fired their livelihoods are at risk. Therefore, making them the same class with the same financial precarity.

      Maybe 250k can be unemployed for a bit longer, but ultimately they must return to work.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        54 months ago

        Usually, to get a $250k job you need to have $250k job trappings, aka you’re unlikely to get or keep that job while living, dressing or eating etc as a $50k job person, ending up in the situation you described.

        Minimalism seems to be a way to escape the rat-race even through salary, but it seems like a strategy for after you have proven yourself indispensable in a high paying job, not something most people can or will achieve, or are able to then make the necessary life changes.

        TLDR if you are a worker become part of a union no matter what salary you’re on.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      24
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        34 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          9
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      124 months ago

      I think it comes down to your level of analysis, or how you define relations. Having been living off $30-40k income for most of my life, I can definitely get the sentiment of the large differences between that and someone making $100k (even $60k), or at least someone living a working class vs middle class lifestyle. But that also goes for someone making $0-10k to $30-40k. Either way, the salience of financial insecurity hits a lot harder for someone with less existing cash.

      That said, I also get the sentiment of the nil difference between working and middle class versus the ultra rich who generate huge swaths of passive income and can basically can dictate whether or not the lower classes have enough for rent. Why bother fight against each other when there’s a much larger and casual target.

      In a more nuanced answer, for solidarity sake we do need to recognize our similarities to work together for a better system. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore our differences and privileges either. We should work towards achieving core necessities for all even at the cost of our own privileges (i.e. an opposite tragedy of the commons: those with some threshold excess contribute to the pond). Determining that threshold is another question, with both absolute and relative poverty thresholds with their own criticisms. And not to say that no class hierarchies will form either, technically skilled and heavily laborious jobs should be rewarded, and people will always try to skim a little off the top to get ahead of their own benefit. But in recognizing our differences, we recognize a need to monitor ourselves for the benefit of everyone.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        44 months ago

        even at the cost of our own privileges

        I agree with everything you’ve said except for this. With worldwide growing inequality, it’s very clear where those resources are going. The people making less if the janitors get a pay bump isn’t the middle managers. It’s the owners, by a very tiny amount. If you don’t have a share of the company, you’re not affected by other people making more or spending less.

        Funnily enough though, another winner in that scenario are small local business owners. More local income means more customers.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          24 months ago

          I mean you’re right on that, it’s not like someone having a Netflix account or not heavily affects the impoverished to the same extent Netflix the company has. But I meant moreso to hold so as a general mindset/expectation. Like owning a cottage is something doable, or at least was doable, for someone with a upper-mid income. Maybe a mid income with some time. But generally, but it’s an expense that really only benefits a few that could be used for something else. Not to say don’t enjoy things, but put your purchases in perspective with some deliberation.

          No entirely on topic, but this mindset would also benefit environmentalism. Being in Canada, I can’t count the number of times people have complained about the end of plastic bags. But really, the trouble of keeping a couple cloth bags on you at all times or even purchasing something later is a bare minimum hassle that outweighs the additional trash. Sure, consumers’ impact is more negligible than industry waste, and industry waste should be the main focus. But from an individuals’ perspective, you need to be slightly more mindful of your own responsibility if you care about your impact because you’re the only person that can keep yourself accountable all times. And it adds up with each person, etc.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        The existence of a large gap doesn’t negate the differences between working and the top 7-2% ers. All I’m saying is there is very clearly a difference.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          24 months ago

          Yeah, I’m agreeing with you on that. I’m moreso stating this because it feels like people are talking past each other is all. An extra $5k for someone making $30k affects much more than someone making $80k regardless of top percenters.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      You laugh now, but we’re staring down the barrel of all that shit melting away as we all burn. The “owning class” is actually making it happen faster lol.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          24 months ago

          And they’ll all burn regardless. Me and you as well. The money and all it meant will burn with us. All these stupid little arguments about class lines are all without value in the face of our self made apocalypse.

          You’ll just have to pardon me. I’ve been paying close attention to the actual biggest, most important news in human history that so many seem to want to downplay or ignore. It’s basically already over and the wealthy are still stomping the gas on it to extract more wealth and power.

          That’s money for you. Our stupid ass ape brains just couldn’t handle the money game we invented. At least the wealthy will be suffering too as they are left to fend for themselves.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            14 months ago

            Hey collapse-aware friend,

            I definitely get the frustration of having that level of awareness and looking around at others discussing things that seem pointless in comparison. Especially early on, if it happens to be a recent thing for you.

            That being said, people aren’t going to suddenly stop living their lives because of where we’re personally at, and saying doomer stuff unprompted is generally just unproductive overall.

            Plus, the sooner everyone is aware, the faster collapse will happen. So might as well let people enjoy what they have now. As you said, it’s basically already over.

            Personally, I enjoy giving shitty, brutally honest answers to job applications for jobs I don’t actually want, to be particularly cathartic. Because who cares about companies.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          24 months ago

          Oh it does. You could say it’s quite existential. The pampered house cats that think themselves above will suffer. Poetic justice as the systems they rely on start to collapse and they see the only class there ever was, was human.

          Some of them are smart enough to see this and they think bunkers and the like will protect them. They won’t. All this made up divisive shit will burn.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      24 months ago

      True, but the increase in salary and productivity should also go up in proportion. And yet, the minimum wage have remained the same since the 1970s.