LOL. Maybe the professional class (doctors, lawyers) but most real working-class people do not bucket themselves in the category as the professional class. Yes, you are all salaried, but they don't get 6 figure RSU's or bonuses.

This is just class infighting, though. If you don't own the capital, you're labour. Yes, some labour is paid better, sometimes much better! But if you can be fired, you're labour, and fighting with other labour is counter-productive.

Instead of scrapping with someone who makes twice your wage for half your work, we should all be scrapping with those who own the capital, who are profiting from our labour, who even allow for such crappy jobs in the first place. We should ALL be paid well and have respectful work accommodations.

If you make $400k/yr, you are a fool if you have not invested the large surplus.

And that investment is the capital for someone else's business.

And you don't have a large surplus at that salary, you are also a fool.

You are missing the entire point that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way and use it to finger wag a straw man.

Working class means that you are earning a wage/salary and you don't own the means of your value production. Small businesses typically aren't working class, whereas sports professionals typically are working class.

If you want to talk about income levels, "working class" isn't a term you should be using; it's too big of a bucket.

The problem with this definition is that even CEOs at big tech giants don't own the company (in the vast majority of cases).

Very valid point. One could extend this definition such that: When someone has enough wealth to make a comfortable living passively, they're no longer working class. I think that should sufficiently account for this.

All the doctors I know are workers for a corporation now, upper middle class. The days of a private practice professional class of doctors owning their own business is mostly gone. Those that did cried poverty at what medicare paid. Dentists are an exception because insurance companies haven't destroyed them yet.

Do you work to survive? Do you get paid a salary in exchange for an hour/week/year's work? Then you're working class, literally.

Do you not work, just get your income from investments and portfolios? Then you aren't working class.

Surely everyone earning over $100k is investing some of that?

It's still people who own vs. people who earn. Those people on 400k are on the same side of the capital divide as people who work at Starbucks.

Hedgies are trying to take a cut of both of their wages so they can buy more cocaine.

Obviously theyd prefer us to think we're special little creative snowflakes who don't need union membership like a common old factory workers. Or Tom Cruise. Or the hollywood writers who just won a massive victory.

Buddy, I’m a data center tech. I rack & stack and run cable. I am working class.

You guys in your nice offices with catered lunches, free drinks, unlimited sick time, RSUs, bonuses, etc?

That isn’t working class. Thats the 1% from where I sit.

> That isn’t working class. Thats the 1% from where I sit.

Your perception doesn't agree with reality. First of all, you need to earn at least double that to qualify for 1%. But that's a different story, as income is not what makes someone 'working class'. If you MUST work in order to survive, you are working class, which is the case even for people making $400k/year.

> catered lunches, free drinks, unlimited sick time, RSUs, bonuses, etc

You're kind of working against your argument here. These things disappear when you lose your job, hence they need to work in order to have them, hence they're working class.

If you need someone to direct your anger towards, it's the people with trust funds, not the W2 workers who are making more than you. Think of it this way. Who benefits the most if your income goes down or stagnates? Other W2 workers? Or someone else who just loves it when you direct your energy against other workers?

There is no shortage of people to direct my anger towards. This community specifically is responsible for the creation, wide adoption of smartphones and the endless doom-scrolling addiction we’re all subjected to now. My ire is limitless; plenty to go around. I don’t require your permission or sign-off on my emotions.

> There is no shortage of people to direct my anger towards. This community specifically is responsible for the creation, wide adoption of smartphones and the endless doom-scrolling addiction we’re all subjected to now.

You're responsible as well, for supporting the infrastructure enabling these efforts.

But don't conflate issues. We were talking about whether or not someone working at BigCo making $400k/year is working class or not. They are, even if they're not blue-collar workers.

I don't really give a damn who or what you're literally angry about, I was just using a figure of speech.

Sometimes its hard to see through the anger; apologies for my behavior.

The middle class has shrunk:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-a...

See section 2. The trend is pretty clear: The upper class is transferring wealth from the middle class. So, demanding that firms cut wages on middle class workers has been standard practice for decades. They're running out of money to extract from there, so they're going after the bottom half of the uppe class next.

I suggest joining a startup; investors that are willing to put cash into companies in times like this end up getting outsized returns on investment (since anyone that can leave the big companies does, the big company's R&D projects get cancelled during downturns, and general morale issues prevent minor product improvements from shipping).

(Also, median of middle class is $90K, and median of upper is $219K. Lower class is $29K. If they broke upper class into 2-4 separate tiers, there'd also be a clear skew in wage growth toward the top of the upper class.)

The TLDR of that article is that most of the "shrinking middle class" can be explained by changing demographics in the US - i.e. the country is getting older.

Older people, pre-retirement, generally earn more then younger people. As it should be - they've spent their lives growing their net worth and gaining experience.

Most "class warfare" can be explained by this - except that it doesn't get clickbait outrage reaction to say "older, experienced people are wealthier than young people starting their careers".

It's much more exciting to skew charts and graphs to show massive wealth disparity, as if there's a sinister cabal of wealthy folks that for some reason don't want others to succeed.

These charts are utterly meaningless if they aren't broken down by age group. You're putting someone who has 30+ years of career growth against someone out of high school and then screaming about wealth disparity.

The article itself even points this out - they say most of the loss of money in middle income was made up for in the 45-65 year old bracket. After 65 (surprise) when folks are retired, this drops off.

The issue isn't some sort of "class warfare" boogeyman. The issue is that we've made it damn near impossible to have a large family these days, and our population demographics are reflecting that, along with income.

Also note: the article doesn't talk about absolute numbers or wealth. It's all percentile stuff. It's easy to play statistics tricks with that.

Your definition of “class” seems to be a kind of vague proxy for “income”. The original comment was using a more accurate definition aligning more with a capital vs labor distinction: are you paid in wages or are you paid in profits?

"middle class" was the starting point of the discussion, with the poster trying to make believe that being a worker means you are middle class

As I commented somewhere else, if you are making 400k a year and are not investing the surplus income as capital for someone else's business then you are probably not making good life decisions. You certainly are making enough to be a rentier

It's a case of the terminology of "class" becoming muddled, which creates such divisions. "Middle class" is the wrong concept here - capital versus labor is what matters.

Somebody in the labor class making that kind of money may be able to springboard themselves into the capital class by investment, but they aren't automatically there based solely on their income.

Most software developers across the globe aren't doing FAANG salaries.

If you depend on a salary to make ends meet you're working class.

This further division of the working class into upper and lower classes based on income is just another method to implement divide-and-conquer by pitting workers against themselves. Yes, software engineers earn a lot more than other salaried professions, it does not mean that software engineers control the means of production. Until a salaried worker earn enough to become part of the capital class and not need to work anymore we are all part of the working class.

Blue-collar/lower income workers might take offense in that, as they'd look at someone making US$200-400k/year as part of the elite, it does not mean that workers earning that shouldn't look at themselves as they are: workers, subjected to an elite class controlling the means of production and hence, their lives.

> Blue-collar/lower income workers might take offense in that, as they'd look at someone making US$200-400k/year as part of the elite, it does not mean that workers earning that shouldn't look at themselves as they are: workers, subjected to an elite class controlling the means of production and hence, their lives.

I was making 400k/year at one time, I also had a few million dollars (that I earned by being "working class" in SV) invested in the S&P500. Which is why your argument has no merit. I could have stopped being "working class" with a 400k/year salary any time I wanted and lived from my investments but I didn't.

I kept being "working class" in SV and I ended up growing my compensation package to nearly 1 million dollars a year. That's what being "working class" in SV can amount to. But please try to convince me that I should take to the streets with my working-class brethren that work at Starbucks because I'm being exploited by the elites.

If you own capital (factories, businesses, capital investments) you don't depend on a salary, you're not working class... It's not meaningless, the division is pretty clear.

Do you depend on an employer to afford your life? If you got disabled and couldn't work a single day again in your life, would you be able to afford it without stress? There it is, that's the meaning of "you depend on salary"...

Edit: I also noticed that usually your comments don't really add much to discussions on HN, could you change that behaviour a little bit, please?

The people that I know that own the means of production work extraordinarily hard.

Long-term disability insurance has nothing to do with whether you are an owner or a worker, but whether you make enough money to afford the insurance premium - - and you can earn that money either by salary or dividends (and their proxies).

> The people that I know that own the means of production work extraordinarily hard.

This is not the point I'm making.

> Long-term disability insurance has nothing to do with whether you are an owner or a worker, but whether you make enough money to afford the insurance premium - - and you can earn that money either by salary or dividends (and their proxies).

Of course you can buy insurance, again, this is not the point I'm making, it's an analogy to the point of: do you depend on someone employing you, and paying you, to live (and have a meaningful life somehow)? You can only pay insurance if you are earning money, usually through a salary...

It's meaningless in that it doesn't describe a societal division that actually matters. A retail worker making 40k a year is not going to identify with a highly paid software engineer. Their life stresses are worlds apart as is their level of financial security.

You're the one trying to divide and conquer by pushing an abstract, out of touch political ideology that has resulted in the deaths of millions

>Edit: I also noticed that usually your comments don't really add much to discussions on HN, could you change that behaviour a little bit, please?

Right back at you comrade!

It's not a societal division, it's an economic division, and one that very much matters, more so every day. What happens when automation eliminates a job? The ownership class (who are making their money off of owning the means of production) get a massive boost to profits. Labor loses their livelihood.

You might be able to make a compelling argument that, as the people pushing that automation forward, high-paid software developers are class traitors, like cops. But cops are still working class, even if they're being paid to betray their own and others in their class's interests.

Working class is defined as needing to work to live.

Even people making 400K are still working class.

Now between the working class, there’s a lot of difference too. The thing is, that difference is on an entirely different scale than the difference between the working class and the owner class.

The 400k is a red herring anyways. Not every engineer makes that, and not ever person who laid off was an engineer. The layoffs affected recruiters, marketing, sales, and a ton of areas that were not engineers. Lower level engineers were also targeted more than the higher level engineers, and even more importantly the hiring freezes and reductions blocked a ton of new grads from getting jobs.

There's a few definitions for it, the one I think most people default to is jobs that require physical labor.

Are teachers not working class then? How about secretaries?

That’s a silly distinction for what “working class” is.

Secretaries would fall under professional class, people who work at a desk. Not sure where teachers would be, probably something similar.