What is "working class"?

Daily Kos had an excellent article yesterday on class and I wondered whether folks on DU read this article. Do you agree with the article? Have your perceptions about class changed, especially in light of the economy the past few years? I grew up working class and defined myself that way because my dad worked in a factory. When I graduated from college, however, I had desk jobs and considered myself "middle class" as the article describes. It took awhile for me to understand that if you are still relying on a paycheck (even one that is relatively healthy) for your livelihood you are in fact working class, no matter how you dress for your job. Now with so many folks losing jobs, working temp, and having a hard time finding work at previous income levels I would imagine many are reconsidering what it means to be a certain class.

Here is an excerpt:



Read the entire article here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/09/974610/-What-is-the-Working-Class

which allows a form of racism between groups of the same colour - mainly whites.

i think you win the daily prize and it is only 0900 here...

sP

Not a good term.

There are workers - people who depend on a paycheck.

There are owners - the folks who own the means of production.

There is no in-between mythical happy land.

I think "working class" implies people that do some sort of physical labor, bricklaying, factory work. But I would like to stretch it to include anyone who has to work for a living, and who are not management. Generally doctors, lawyers, accountants, biologists etc are generally not working class. And it may matter what your parents were. My dad was middle-management, so, although I identify a great deal with the working class I am probably not myself a part of it.

people who are too old, too sick and too injured to work.

This language is going to pan out very well in 2012.

NOT.

A good portion of the poor are working-class or were once working class. It's a war of the owning classes against all of us, and the fascist elements of the working class who hate themselves and who hate the non-working poor are just tools manipulated by the owning classes.

And calling us "fascists" is one very good example. :nuke:

Come election time, deal with the consequences.

My understanding has always been:

Lower class: One who sells labor and is usually paid by the hour or by piece. Some licensed professionals in female-dominated professions (hair dressers, cooks, increasingly teachers). Usually unskilled and relatively uneducated. Defines people according to interpersonal relationship. (He's Suzy's boyfriend.) Prefered reading or TV programs are personality-related. (People Magazine, Jersey Shore). Tend to belong to lower class religions: RC Catholic, Evangelical or Pentacostal, Jehovah's Witness. "Working class" is a euphemism used by the Census bureau for people who do not want to admit lower class status.

Middle class: Skilled artisans, licensed professionals esp. in traditional male-dominated professions, business owners with several employees. People who are paid for what they know. Defines people according to profession. (She's a nurse that I know.) Men tend to be educated at regionally significant colleges and women at locally significant ones. Tend to have middle-class religions: RC Catholic (largest single denomination), mainstream Protestant, Jewish. Preferred reading and TV are idea-oriented. (Time Magazine etc.)

Upper class: major corporate share owners. People who are paid for what they own. Defines people based on family connections. (Married a member of the Koch family.) Educated at globally significant colleges. Upper class religions: Episcopal, Christian Science. Prefered reading is related to specialized interests (Wooden Boat Magazine). Typically an insular group that does not interact socially with those outside the ruling class.

It gives the illusion of a "middle class". That there is this magical utopia between the two classes (the "lower" class that no one wants to be in - and the "greedy" upper class that owns everything). Therefore, since most people don't want to admit to being poor, but realize that only a few are really billionaires at the top, then the default becomes "oh, I'm middle class".

But make no mistake, it is only an illusion. You may think you are "skilled" and "licensed" and all these other words that make you feel happy, but if you rely on a paycheck to pay your bills you are a "worker". When we buy into this "middle class" myth it keeps us from admitting what the class relations are really like in this country. Most people don't make very much money, most people can't go very long without a paycheck, and that makes us all more vulnerable to the whims of the very wealthy.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Middle class is an artificial term that was (and is) used EXACTLY as you say, to divide the proletariat from each other.

It's worked wonderfully for the capitalists in the imperialist countries. It's led to the development of a labor aristocracy and bureaucracy that considers itself and aligns itself WITH the exploiters rather than the masses. And THIS alignment by the aristocracy/bureaucracy OF the working class consequently leads these people to damp down the worker's class consciousness and desire for REAL change of the system.

IOW, everybody has a chance to make it to the labor aristocracy (so the myth goes), so everybody should be invested IN the system rather than want and work to CHANGE the system. Of course this isn't true either, but it creates enough of a pleasant fiction that it has kept the working class as a whole in line, divided and, LITERALLY, out of the streets.

However, the latest capitalist bust has led to a severe weakening of this viewpoint through allowing more and more people who formally considered themselves "middle class" to see EXACTLY where they stand. They're wage slaves to the capitalists just like the people they formally tried to control.

Most people look at classes STRICTLY economically, whereas they're actually SOCIAL as well as economically based.

They will fill up blog after blog complaining about offshoring, but ask them to form a union and they literally shriek.

There are characteristic distinctions between the working class and the professional class. One tends to have health insurance, the other tends not to. One tends to live in the burbs, the other in the city or in the sticks. One tends to hire the other. Middle class people tend to be slightly invested. They have different attitudes about things. Even though a doctor has more in common with a janitor than she does with a member of the ruling class, there is still a real difference between middle and lower classes.

but are their substantial economic differences? If I'm mortgaged to the hilt in my suburb with my McMansion and Lexus, paying down the student loans that made Medical School possible - does that mean I'm of a higher class than someone in the "sticks" who owns a modest home, works for 35-50K a year, and pays his bills? One may view the doctor as higher class, but is that really true? What would happen if both men lose their jobs in this scenario?

Does class determine the pattern of saving and spending? What about people who live very frugally, and accumulate impressive savings, despite having unimpressive incomes?

Living frugally and investing on an "unimpressive" income is not going to put you in the territory of Bill Gates.

So you save a million or two on an "unimpressive" income - that puts you with professionals who put a little away (or have equity in luxury homes when they retire). This category of folks is well off, but certainly not rich. And this category of folks is also a fairly small number when compared against most of the population.

The link between religious denomination and class category is interesting.

model. This model is based on a vague conception of presumed social status, income, gender, and "well-being" in a mid-century American workforce. The Marxist model clearly looks at your relationship to the production process. Do you produce or service any product or good for the profit of an owner be it bank, local business, or capitalist state? You're a worker. A college professor produces product-classes that consumer-students pay for with tuition. If you work at a car parts plant (hour, salary, or piece) you are a worker. (If you're paid by the hour or by the piece, you're probably a highly exploited worker, especially in the latter case.)

If you do not work and you own the means of producing things in society (museums, factories, chains, banks) then you are a capitalist. A "big" bourgeois. You earn your living as a parasite of the working class, extracting your lifestyle from their labor. (Oh sure, you "put up the capital", but where did that capital come from? It came from your family who were capitalists and owned the means of production, or because you are royalty, or some group of workers you exploited at some time. No "big bourgeois" ever get to where they are from the working class. Sometimes the petit bourgeois, but not from anything as ludicrous as saving their wages.

The petit bourgeois (little bourgeois) are the class that straddles the working classes and the big bourgeois. They are generally the tools of the big bourgeois, but not in all cases. Some examples of PB are: stockbrokers, local restauranteurs, corporate lawyers and finance execs who live on bonuses, celebrities, lobbyists, etc. The petit bourgeois sell or resell a product for their own profit. Technically someone who makes a small living off of reselling things on eBay or who has a tiny stand at a flea market is petit bourgeois. In advanced societies with good social safety nets, workers may earn much more than the PB. In a revolutionary situation, the PB will split ideologically depending on how close their own situations are to being or becoming working class. (Flea market lady who is coping with being unemployed more likely to side with the working class, restauranteur more likely to side with capitalists.

One thing is always consistent. Under capital, a capitalist will always do better than a worker because capitalists accumulate wealth through the devaluation of the labor of the working class. The petit bourgeois are always in a tenuous situation, which makes them prone to reaction. For this reason, the petit bourgeois has always been the general base of fascist movements and nationalist movements (for example, the Tea Party)

you'll never know.

There has been a concerted effort in this country to sell the "American Dream" - and there is a definite stigma to being working class. It's just another way the owners divide us, but it's important to point out and talk about. I think people are very capable of understanding they've been duped. It may not be a comfortable feeling, but folks are not stupid and once they realize this has happened they can think about what their situation really is, and where they really fit into society. If enough people do this we will have the people we need to organize on a massive scale.

Years ago I realized that myself, and most others are working class, and I am quite comfortable, even proud, of the description. They thought they could secure our loyalty by planting the notion we're not ( quite ) the bottom rung by by attempting to include us in a group that allows those so inclined to look down on at least somebody.

All the years before, me and others have come to see the obvious attempt at preserving the status quo just for what it is. Reminds me of a prize fighter getting increasingly battered and bloodied at each round being told by his handlers that he's doing just great...and to keep going.

over the last few years. It's not strictly Marxist I know, but it seems to fit today's social milieu.

I've always considered myself working class both by background and by employment. Even when I was self employed as a working musician, I was still trading my skills for money DIRECTLY. The same applies lately when I've been working as a contractor.

The only argument I could see from some with this designation of "working class", is the long term unemployed and poor/disabled and retired/disabled, etc. IMO, the long term unemployed would still be part of the working class, just not working. The other group probably SHOULD be considered part of the working class SOCIALLY too because, in most cases, they came OUT of the working class. The small percentage of retired/disabled that make money from investments would still be capitalist class.

But then as I say, my view of working class is different than a lot of folks.

Thank you for posting, have to get to work. Will read when I get back.

before the NeoCons destroyed all the jobs. "
See: permanently unemployed.

I understand your sentiment! :) Is a worker still a worker, if he's not allowed to work? Sounds like a Zen koan.

Is my middle aged ( OMG !!!) son who has been unemployed for over a year still in the working class?
Zen indeed.

Although as I've stated before, my definition of working class tends to be broader than most Marxists.

The unemployed worker is part of the surplus worker pool that capitalists like to have as large as possible because it depresses wages. So that's DEFINITE working class, unless it's a ruined small time capitalist or land owner. The retired person would be working class if he/she comes out of the working class and gets most of his/her income from the social safety net or fixed pensions. Retired persons who get most of their income from surplus capital, i.e., stocks, ownership of a capitalist endevor, etc. would probably not be working class.

what about our current supreme court justices, are they working class too?

you see, there are workers and there are owners. obama is not of the owning class, even if he acts in their interests (as we all do in bourgeois society). therefore he must be working class.

and most professionals fit into it - the Management Class. That class that in ancient China was known as the Civil Servants, the Bureaucracy. The Bureaucracy, whether in industry or in government, is neither owner, nor worker, but are the facilitators for the owners.

Kings come and go, but the Civil Servants endure.

DIRECTLY to the SURVIVAL of the current system. Although, I consider them part of the exploiting class UNTIL they're thrown out of their priviledged positions.

who's livelihood is DIRECTLY dependent on keeping the bourgeoisie in power. Politicians, military upper echelon, a lot of the police departments, a lot of the upper management of capitalistic concerns and some other groups are paid out of surplus profits for the SOLE purpose of keeping the system the way it is.

Where "working class" gets murky is when you work at a lower level in these groupings. The lower the level, the better the chance of being thrown out of work and back down into the proletarian class. IOW, losing your bourgeoisie privileges.

or are his investments enough? Same with the Supremes, I don't know how much wealth they control individually. Based on their salaries, of course they are workers, but again I don't know their personal situations well enough to comment.

it's way too broad; it wildly inflates the category of worker at the expense of the other ones (bourgeois, white-collar, bureaucratic, whatever), until the only True Bourgeois left is some uncle pennybags motherfucker

I would argue that the elites are the ones "wildly" inflating the category of worker by creating myriad sub-categories designed to make us feel better about our lots in life. If we start comparing notes we might find that many of us different "categories" of workers have much in common - namely that we are getting screwed by the capitalists. And then we might organize and fight back. That is what worries the elites so they keep us divided in this fashion (and quite effectively I might add).

It's all one big game to you isn't it?

so I would think that is most of us.

just my opinion.

in essence, Conservatives do not believe that "working class" are middle class. Much of 20th Century liberalism and labor efforts were aimed at raising workers conditions, through unions and legislation, into an economic condition approaching middle class status. With great success, I might add.

However, conservatives tend to think that if you work for someone else, you are not middle class, no matter how much money you make or stuff you own. Thus their lack of respect for working people. To them "working" always means "lower" when the term "class" is appended. To them, treating people like shit is an incentive plan for personal growth, and they are willing to tolerate the backlash like crime and other anti-social behaviors.

To them, we're not destroying the middle class, we're making it stronger by culling the undesirables, meaning people who work for wages, instead of owning their own businesses.

If you work for someone else and get a paycheck from them you are working class. There may be some members of the working class such as some doctors, lawyers, and other "skilled" workers, who make more, but they are still working class. Also, unlike the Capitalist class the working class usually has to keep working or they are in trouble. Paris Hilton has never had to work a day in her life and she never will, the Koch brothers have never worked a day in their lives, sorry I don't consider being a CEO actually working I prefer to think of it as being a parasite, whereas even a fairly well-off doctor or lawyer usually has to keep working in order to keep up with bills and such.

thanks for commenting.

You have proletariat vs. capitalists

And if you wish to distinguish between members of the proletariat, you have the working class, the professional class, mid-management, etc.

Is this contradictory? I think each distinction can be useful in certain situations.

They are all working class and your system has the potential to divide the lower level working class against the professional level working class and keep them from focusing on their mutual enemy, the capitalist.

And it is a definite weakness. Not sure if there's a real solution. New terms for cultural differences w/in a class, maybe? I dunno. I do think the prole/capitalist division is much more important. hmmmm

If you live on wages that you earn by working for someone else, if you couldn't survive on investment income, if the only property you own is the house you live in (and the mortgage holder owns most of it), then you are WORKING CLASS.

MIDDLE CLASS means you work for yourself and own your own "means of production"--a small business, a farm--and you may have working class employees, but probably not a whole bunch of them. Think also independent professionals: Dentists, doctors, attorneys (all when in private practice), even massage therapists and hair stylists.

The CAPITALIST CLASS lives on their investments in the labor and production of others.

How much simpler can it get?

$250k/year salary is "working class"? This is not the historical definition of these terms.

every word means something new (which you have only just invented.)

It would be just as poor an argument. :shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In my mind, there are only three classes. An underclass of intergenerational poverty, an upper class of (often inherited) wealth, and the middle class that does all the working to support the other two.

"The deciding factor as to whether you are working or capitalist class has nothing to do with the sort of work you do or how much money you make, but rather pertains to how you make your money."

Unmitigated nonsense. This definition is illogical and ahistorical. In other words, words have meaning, and cannot be capricously redefined to benefit the $250k/annum set. :hi:

Just how many classes do you think there are? Do enlighten us with your "logical and historical" definitions.

:hi:

nt

to change the definition of "working class" to include banksters, CEOs, et al, the onus is on YOU. :hi:

Please re-read the article. I think you've missed the point.

How many are there? With all of your replies you refuse to answer. Why is that?

The onus is on YOU to support it. :hi:

Your refusal to answer (and thereby back the status quo) speaks volumes.

I wonder why that is?

of someone who makes so much money that he can't possibly be "working class". Do you care to correct her, and explain how JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is "working class"?

Because I doubt you've got the gumption to do so, frankly. :hi:

Jamie Dimon earned a $1 million salary, and a $5 million bonus for 2010. :hi:

The Owner class, which includes board members, CEOs, and investors.
The Upper-management class, which includes district/regional managers, department heads, and the like.
The Lower-management class, which includes titles such as "Store Manager", floor supervisors, etc.
The Worker class, which includes all employees below manager/supervisor.

The rich are uniformly privileged vis a vis those who are not, irrespective of how their money was obtained.

Doctors and engineers and lawyers aren't "rich" and have no power.

Who has more power?

From the OP: "A working class person is anyone who works for a paycheck."

(emphasis mine)

"works for a paycheck and needs that paycheck to pay his/her bills. Is not independently wealthy". Does that help?

Re Jamie Dimon individually - depends upon his situation. My guess is that he's banked some of those millions. If not, and he is living paycheck to paycheck he might just qualify.

You're "simple" definition is becoming more convoluted! :shrug:

as long as he/she whizzes away most of their money.

What a silly and insulting definition.

I was just comparing the $ amounts if we gauged it per hour

Dimon could lose his job and paycheck and still be in the upper class

"Dimon could lose his job and paycheck and still be in the upper class"

That's explicitly NOT part of the definition from the OP:


"What, then, constitutes the working class? The deciding factor as to whether you are working or capitalist class has nothing to do with the sort of work you do or how much money you make, but rather pertains to how you make your money. A working class person is anyone who works for a paycheck. If you have an employer that pays you a paycheck, then you're working class."

As do I. In particular, we seem to disagree with the statement, "A working class person is anyone who works for a paycheck," since Jamie Dimon, who you mentioned, would qualify as "working class" under this definition.

I only expanded on the notion of power.

A discussion of class consciousness is always a good thing

but you don't agree that Jamie Dimon qualifies under this standard, you are taking two contradictory positions at once. :shrug:

Maybe I'm not communicating very well

They can mean whatever we want them to! :shrug:

is that when someone says "work for a paycheck" they mean that the paycheck is needed to survive. It means that without the paycheck they would not be able to survive very long with the resources they have.

The reason you are doing this is that you'd like to debunk the article. The article is clearly anti-status quo and that bothers you for some reason. Wonder why.

From *your* OP:

(emphasis mine)

If the article means that a wealthy heiress sitting on billions, like Paris Hilton, can collect a paycheck for appearing on a television article (as an example) and that would qualify her as "working class" than that of course is inane. I took the article as asserting that if you work for a paycheck, and could not carry on for very long without that paycheck then you are working class.

The point is that there is a very small percentage of folks in this country who can live off their investments/savings/inheritances/profit for any length of time. Most of us are quite dependent on our paychecks, and therefore vulnerable to the whims of the very wealthy.

we ALL have our own ideas about what they should mean! :silly:

So not dependent on a wage from his work.

Then again, with the goverment funding your Ponzi scheme, the word risk is relative...

"So not dependent on a wage from his work."

The word "dependent" doesn't appear in the OP. Obviously, the new definition needs some fine tuning. :shrug:

"What, then, constitutes the working class? The deciding factor as to whether you are working or capitalist class has nothing to do with the sort of work you do or how much money you make, but rather pertains to how you make your money. A working class person is anyone who works for a paycheck"

It's pretty clear - Dimon doesn't work for a paycheck just because he gets one. The CEO and board members aren't workers, even if they get a paycheck. They are owners, capitalists.

They are paid their money from the investment of their capital - and that makes all the difference.

But think what you will...

The hair dresser, the farmer, the solo practitioner lawyer?

dresser contract wages to avoid taxes? Or the hair dresser invests the capital to rent stalls to a bunch of other hair dressers and makes money from their labor?

The farmer that invests his (or her) money and operates a dairy farm that goes under? They are not working class, they are owners of capital that invested it. Didn't say they weren't dog-awful hard workers, but they were self-directed.

The lawyer is in the same boat. Sole practictioner, but aas her (or his) fortunes rise or fall, the gain (or loss) accrues to them.
The lawyer works very hard, tries getting new clients, invests money into an office which should present a respectable front. No clients though and the lawyer is going to be trying to figure out how to break that lease. The employee just gets the paycheck.

Their interests may coincide - the farmer that squeezes out a $50,000 year likely has a lot more in common (whether they realize it or not) with the line worker at the electronic soldering shop.

But if speculators kick the price for garlic up over the moon, the farmer profits handsomely. In the electronic shop, however, even if they get a new contract by, say, building a new lodge-style log cabin for a favorite politician and that results in a multi-million dollar government contract, the worker just gets the salary, (which may or may not change) while the partners and boardmembers get to decide how to split up the new profits.

They world just isn't that clear...

worked out of a converted garage attached to the house for herself. No other employees. So is she is a capitalist instead of a worker? Is she working class or capitalist class? How is she gaining wealth through the exploitation of others?

"It's pretty clear - Dimon doesn't work for a paycheck just because he gets one. The CEO and board members aren't workers, even if they get a paycheck"

OK. I don't disagree, but this is NOT the definition from the OP. Dimon works, and Dimon draws a paycheck. You can argue he doesn't really "need" the paycheck, or that being paid in stock options is conceptually different than being paid in cash, or that Dimon could continue to work for JP Morgan Chase without being compensated and still survive (but why would he?). And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of your qualifications.

But again, we are drifting far from the OP's "simple as that" definition:

the profits. That is not a normal perk for an employee. But you may be right.

It is his control of money that gets him paid, not work. Granted, he works. It must be nearly as hard getting in and out of one of his expensive cars as it is to run a vacuum cleaner all night in an office building. He must go home exhausted.

On the other hand, he is welcome to come hold a sign at the rally ;)

19. Jamie Dimon
Chairman of the Board, President and CEO
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM)

2006 Total compensation: $41.2 million
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0709/gallery.women_men_highest_pay.fortune/19.html

He's altruistic. Took a pay cut, only got 1 mill in 2009. 2010 things are looking up, got a 16 million bonus on top of his paycheck.

The middle class myth is a bizarre phenomenon.

The bulk of working class after-survival purchases are directly related to items specifically designed and marketed to prove they're...not working class.

Go figure

K&R

when we think about whose purpose the myth serves ... thanks for your comments.

:hi:

..... as to definitions of "class", beit social, economic, or cultural. Figures.

to get any dental work or see a dentist, can't afford to see a doctor or go to the emergency room, can't afford car repairs and/or a vehicle upgrade or new tires, can't afford an eye exam for new glasses unless they skip eating for a couple weeks, can't afford a vacation or to be sick or to miss even a half a day of work. No money for savings, always struggling.

The middle class can afford most of that (maybe not all at once) but it is changing. Pretty soon, no matter what your definition, the majority of us will be working poor with all the horrible and degrading experiences that come with it. The majority of the young adult generation today has been stripped of any chance of belonging to unions, getting a pension with healthcare/universal healthcare, roped into the 401k scam, school loan payback for decades, and social security will be gone by the time they desperately need it. A train wreck.

For me working class is an experience defined by never ever having enough for necessities despite a lifetime of constant labor. The existing middle class of workers aren't there yet.

don't you think?

The "middle class" of the 1950's for example, when some tax rates were as high as 90%, seems to have pretty much disappeared.

There are now folks who have homes, cars, vacations, medical & dental, and a little in savings - and most of them are certain professionals (engineers, doctors, lawyers).

I'd say it was in the interest of the wealthy to promote the idea of a "middle class" in order to give folks something to strive for - and for some reason that is now changing. Now they are not even bothering to do that.

People are starting to take notice because large chunks of middle class workers are falling into the working class/working poor/below poverty abyss.

The discussion at the link to the article is interesting comparing low wage workers to middle class workers with field slaves and house slaves. Divide and conquer. Middle class workers are living a lie, a fantasy.

Too bad they have no intention of waking up.

I work cleaning the houses of the middle and upper middle class. The most clueless, overprotected, uninformed bunch I have ever met. They have no intention of ever finding common ground with the likes of me. In fact I serve as a reminder of what can happen should they question the fantasy they are fed daily on TV. Thinking is painful for them.

According to this definition, I am working class even though my husband and I both work full-time in desk jobs that require college degrees. Our jobs pay poorly for the amount of responsibility and education they require and we are literally earning less money, in actual dollars, than we were ten years ago.

:hi:

:hi:

:wow:

Discuss!

:popcorn:

:popcorn: :wow:

You're quick! :-)

I don't think that was the intent. I thought it was the other way - to show that there are many people out there laboring under the idea that they are part of some magical "middle" or "professional" class, but in reality they are not that much better off than what we would think of as traditional labor.

What I've seen in the past few years with the financial crash is also a change in what it's like to be employed in this country. High unemployment, people staying in bad positions out of fear that they will have nothing else, wages stagnating or dropping, benefits being lost or costing more, etc...

And in fact I could bring up the info showing the startling gap between rich and poor in terms of wages. (I will hunt it down again if anyone is really interested).

To me this shows that we are overwhelmingly a 2 class society - the very wealthy and everyone else.

The fact is, many of these high earners who wish now to glom onto working class consciousness supported (and continue to support) many of the same policies that led us to our present state. For example, "Free Trade".

Moreover, this is not the first time we have been asked to take the side of high earners. We have a poster here who habitually argues against assessing Social Security withholdings from the wages of high earners, for example. In addition, the President recently argued that he would protect tax cuts "for the middle class" who made up to $250,000/year. Finally, there are routinely threads posted to DU to argue that $250,000/year is "not really that much money" in certain parts of the country.

The modern day Party panders to the wealthy (which is why it was so interesting that President Obama's close confidant, Jamie Dimon, was mentioned!). To my mind, this is all part of that pattern...

just wanted to thank you for the comments in this thread. My kids are home so I'm not on as much in the evening, but I will check in on this thread again in the morning.

:hi:

(income levels of DUers) and basically this poll showed that this was a VERY working class group.

And nobody's trying to redefine top earners as "working class". Although, I'd like to think that they're getting a little scared and WANT to be considered "working class", I actually kind of doubt it. Top, non owning CEOs, politicians, upper echelon military personnel, a lot of the police functionaries, people who actually LIVE off of investments although they're not "rich", all these people are part of the bourgeoisie "fellow travelers" who's whole raison d'etre is to BUFFER THE EXPLOITERS FROM THE WORKING CLASS. This group also includes some lower level functionaries which ARE working class because their priviledges and wealth can be taken away and they could fall into the proletariat quickly. But the top guys, not so much.

Even in your example of this Dimon guy, if he makes a million a year in salary and FIVE million a year in stock options then he makes 5 times his salary as an owner. Which would make him part of the capitalist class.

Which is another one of the conceptual problems with this "two class" theory--conceptually stock options are just another form of compensation for Dimon. They are, in other words, another form of wages, which Dimon "earns" from his labor. Now, you might attribute the growth in value of these options to "investments", but the value as issued is simply another form of compensation.

And, fwiw, Dimon was brought up as an example of someone who supported the OP. I just thought it ironic, since Dimon obviously earns a salary.

signals ownership. Stock is what, collectively, OWNS the company. Ergo, if this guy get 5 times his annual income from ownership, he's capitalist. It doesn't matter whether he negotiatied the stock as part of his pay or not. When he collects dollars in stocks, it's ownership.

If Mr. Dimon received no salary at all (save his stock options,) it would not be correct to say that he is "uncompensated" for his labor.

Now, the FORM of that compensation is, in part, stock options. After they are transferred to Dimon, you can characterize them as an ownership position. However, when he receives them, they are part of his compensation package.

This is really no different from Dimon being paid in cash, and then purchasing the options with that cash. Either way, the compensation flows from his labor.

"It doesn't matter whether he negotiatied the stock as part of his pay or not. When he collects dollars in stocks, it's ownership."

With all due respect, this is the problem with ad hoc re-defintions; these new terms mean whatever we'd like them to.

whether cash transaction after being paid or as part of compensation, HE STILL OWNS THE STOCKS. What's more he still makes 5 times as much as an owner as he did as an employee. Either way, since most of his income comes from owning a company he is, by definition, a member of the capitalist class and definitely NOT working class.

I see no basis to believe they are on "our side" now. :shrug:

:shrug:

to OUR side in the class struggle. But I do think that the onus is on them to prove their loyalty to the proles, not vice versa.

live like a king on his invested capital.

While I agree that Jamie Dimon is patently not a "working class" person, I don't believe our position can be squared with that of the OP, which is stated in absolute terms. We went from "anyone who works for a paycheck is working class" to having to determine Dimon's capital gains income and whether or not he "needs" his paycheck? Turns out it is NOT "simple as that", after all. :shrug:


From the OP:

But we made the same point. Even if you wanted to consider 1 million dollars per year as "working class" just because it's a paycheck, he made FIVE TIMES THAT MUCH AS AN OWNER from stocks. And not only CEOs, but also MOST of the TOP guys in a large corp make more off the stocks than they do off the salary.

That makes them owners. PERIOD.

Whether it comes in the form of a "paycheck" or a "dividend", Dimon is a capitalist who does no productive labor.

The so-called "Middle Class" are just white-collar members of the Working Class with Capitalist Class pretensions.

If you have to work to live you are Working Class, if you can live off "your investments" (AKA wealth stolen from workers) you are Capitalist Class.

The only people I've ever known and/or met tell me otherwise all have 1 thing in common. Without fail. They're always pushing me to believe, vote, or subscribe to ideologies or policies that are a direct threat to my economic well being. By "well being", I mean getting by, not riding a gravy train.

that's how i usually hear the term used

there is no use pretending that a guy who rides a desk all day is working as hard as a guy who gets into factories and puts his neck at risk of injury

some working class jobs may pay the same as some middle class jobs but c'mon, this is standard usage in america

there is no use saying that everyone who holds a job is working class, in fact, many people i consider working class don't even consider themselves working class

for instance, the plumber thinks he's a capitalist, my air conditioning repair guy thinks he's a capitalist and so on

yeah there are poseurs who pretend they're all working class because they get a paycheck but that's just silly, it is not using the term as it is commonly understood...don't be one of those poseurs...if you are middle class don't pretend you're not

1. you have to ask for vacation time, and then wait on pins & needles to see if it's "approved"

2. you have someone else dictate when your lunch break will be, and how long it will be

3. you have to tell someone/ask permission to go to the bathroom

4. you suspect you are underpaid, but you have no "safe" way to find out what coworkers are being paid

5. you have to beg for a raise, and when told no, then worry that you may be labeled a troublemaker or thought to be greedy

6. you have sick days without pay

there are more, but those have always been at the top of the list for me

at the same time and without contradiction. In a real sense, there are two "classes" the exploiters and the exploited. However, that isn't terribly useful in most conversations. Throw in the typical 3-level classification, (lower, middle and upper) and you have a bit more nuance for discussing socio-economic trends. Depending on what you're discussing, it might (and I think usually should) make sense to parse more deeply into at least two, possibly three sublevels within those three, i.e., chronic poor, working poor, mobile poor, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, local owner class, regional, master owner. I'd throw in at least one non-economic group the intellectual and/or the bohemian.
Six or seven (some might add the local owner class) of the nine economic classes are technically working class in that they primarily trade labor for capital (rather than the opposite). For a few broadbrush discussions, that can work as an "us vs. them" scenario, but understand in any potential economic revolution (or even major restructuring) no one in the lower four classes should count on solidarity with the majority of the next 2 or three classes. In fact, it is much easier to get any two factions of these six or seven classes to squabble than it is to get them to agree on an approach to dealing with the top 2 classes.

The $8.00 an hour receptionist at a business, sitting at a desk all day, considers herself "middle class". The $300,000 executive at the office down the hall from her considers herself "middle class". Now it is obvious that these two are not in the same class.

I read a study years ago that showed most people will classify themselves as "middle class" as long as they have a regular full-time job. No one seems to want to be classified as lower class, and everyone thinks that the upper class consists only of uber wealthy.

I have always been working class, and I am not ashamed of that.

People tend to place themselves into either an overly broad class (as you mentioned, a fictional "middle" class) or create a class for themselves outside the lower/middle/upper system. No offense, but "working class" isn't clearly defined.

Does say, the owner of a small plumbing company, a person that has maybe a dozen employees and makes about $150,000/year, qualify? He (or she) has probably worked with his or her hands for most of their lives, probably they live in the same neighborhood as the people working for them. What about the bank employee making $45,000? The woman who owns a day care center, or runs a maid service? Does it make a difference if the owner of the plumbing company inherited it from a parent? How about if the bank clerk just got out of college or what if the clerk is nearing retirement and only got to $45,000 after years and years of work in the bank?

The point is that class is a soup of factors, incorporating much more than just salary and job type. It is why poverty can seem to be chronic in some populations, why programs such as affirmative action don't immediately rectify the problems they seek to address. Class is as much social and cultural as it is financial or career-based. It is why that $8/hr receptionist may indeed be in the same class as the $300K executive, and at the same time, the $300K exec in the office next door might be in an entirely different class.

Like those that can not work and still have a roof and food and a life. Which if my family was without work the roof and food would change rapidly. It used to be that separation of blue collar and white collar but I don't think that matters anymore. Work is work and it should all be valued as work and working class if that income is one's only income.

PS - I am NOT saying that SS or SSI is bad or that people don't deserve the assistance. I'm simply giving my idea of working class.

PSS - personally I'm a "leveler" which should have some meaning in this discussion.