Hacker News Reader

Historically this just isn’t correct - for example in accounts of labour agitation and union formation in the 19th century it’s noted time and again that the organisers and ringleaders were often the cream of the workers in each industry despite the attempts of capital to put forward the impression you have. The very best of humanity can see further than their own little bubble.

When the metric is income, pretty much everybody who works for wages or salary is below median. People who are above it are those who derive most of their income from investments.

So, in that sense, OP is still correct - it's beneficial for workers to organize for collective action, so long as you draw the proper boundaries within which that collective action will operate.

It's also often supported by those at the most extreme top end for whom it has very little positive or negative impact beyond signaling. See philanthropic billionaires and top-level athletes for examples.

Mean, not median.