It's important for petit bourgeois and wealthy skilled workers to understand their position in the class hierarchy, but calling a class whose power is dwarfed by the capitalist class an aristocracy is fluffy rhetoric.
Controlling policy is one thing.
Who "just has money" and doesn't control capital? Anyone who has money actually has some sort of capital or an equivalently powerful financial instrument be it stocks, loans to other companies, government bonds, a house, etc.
This is an important distinction, don't you think?
People who derive their income primarily from investments but don't really decide anything or buy labor power are a rung below those who do. Taxonomize it however you want provided the distinction remains.
The high-net-worth individual who deposits his capital with an asset manager, or the salaried fund manager who determines which securities to buy with it?
The angel investor who puts $1M of his own money into a fledgling startup, or the entrepreneur who decides how it's spent?
The hedge fund manager who has bought 40% of the company on Wall Street, or the CEO entrusted to make the daily decisions on company operation?
I'm surprised the grandparent post has been downvoted, because when you get close to how capital is actually managed and invested, it's clear that it's a lot less clear than it looks from the outside. Even people who nominally have "control" over capital expenditures are subject to market returns. If they don't invest that capital correctly, they will lose the ability to manage more capital.
1. The vast majority of middle class wealth is locked up in (non-investment) housing. That money provides a roof and access to quality education, but in almost all cases, it's not being efficiently deployed as capital.
2. Whatever remaining money that is deployed as capital, is not done so in a way that implies control over their chosen investments. Think "majority shareholder" vs. "just another investor". That's the difference between "controlling capital" and merely having a bit of skin in the game.
There are literally 0 people I know who think owning a house is not an investment.
If you're trying to make a distinction between income generating assets and assets that don't generate income, you're just digging yourself into a hole - housing doesn't generate income, but it does save cost - namely rental cost. In that sense, it is a better investment because the return is less risky.
> 2. Whatever remaining money that is deployed as capital, is not done so in a way that implies control over their chosen investments. Think "majority shareholder" vs. "just another investor". That's the difference between "controlling capital" and merely having a bit of skin in the game.
That's well and good, but it's just as true for most people above the 10% line as for those below. You have to get to some truly lofty heights before you find the activist investors.
I thought of my house as a "use asset", like a car. It's nice when the house appreciates. But I couldn't sell it and "cash out" if I had to use the proceeds to buy another house. But, as you said, it saved on rental costs.
That was exactly the point the GP was trying to make...