people who labour for wages, rather than those who own capital and earn through profit. Loosely speaking, workers versus investors. Most people on this site would fit the middle class, where you have a foot in both sides.
Middle class is mostly a myth, unless you can quit your job and maintain your lifestyle, you are labour, not capital.
Financial independence is a consequence of individual choices. Most workers can achieve financial independence by the time they are elderly. A surprising number of workers can achieve financial independence early, but choose not to.
"None of their income comes from capital"? Slightly more than half of Americans own stock in one form or another, and I think it's rare for middle class people to have absolutely no investments at all. For the slight majority of Americans, some of their income comes from capital. But perhaps Americans are unusually enthusiastic about investment.
When it comes to class, though, economics is not the whole picture. Class is more directly about social status, and social status is not wholly dictated by income. In the 1980's, Paul Fussell wrote a satirical book, titled Class, exploring this phenomenon. The specific examples are dated but the underlying concept remains somewhat valid.
It's not /just/ a matter of individual choice though, is it? Somebody with poor earning potential living in a high cost-of-living area (say, a waiter in LA) is not going to be able to achieve financial independence in a lifetime of saved income, and simultaneously a trust fund child can be set for life despite being a complete waste of air. A person's prospects are much more environmental (dare I say, systemic?) than individual. Tell a fruit picker in Guatemala that they too can achieve FIRE status by picking themselves up by their bootstraps and eating less avocado toast, and they might respond with scepticism.
> When it comes to class, though, economics is not the whole picture. Class is more directly about social status, and social status is not wholly dictated by income.
The concept of working class, as contrasted with capitalist class, is defined in purely economic terms. Social class is basically a separate thing entirely, with "working class" as a social class being associated with blue-collar, salt-of-the-earth manual labourer types (at least here in the UK).
I wouldn’t recommend spending your whole life waiting tables in LA. Doing that is also a question of personal choice.
> and simultaneously a trust fund child can be set for life despite being a complete waste of air
“Complete waste of air” is a little harsh but I’m reminded of the first Marxist I actually met. He didn’t grasp the irony.
> Tell a fruit picker in Guatemala that they too can achieve FIRE status by picking themselves up by their bootstraps and eating less avocado toast, and they might respond with scepticism.
I was mostly talking about wealthy, developed countries like the US.
I can’t help but notice that you’re moving the goalposts considerably, however. If you define “working class” as everyone who needs to work to earn an income, to the degree of explicitly denying the existence of a “middle class” at all, you’re not just talking about impoverished fruit pickers and waiters; you’re talking about people like software engineers who actually do own stock and could retire early if they wanted to.
the tables still need waiting, food still needs harvesting etc. You can't run an economy on just middle managers, software engineers and financiers; what do you think happens to everybody else who doesn't get the "personal choice" to earn above the average wage?
> “Complete waste of air” is a little harsh but I’m reminded of the first Marxist I actually met. He didn’t grasp the irony.
I'm not a Marxist, but yeah your college junkie Marxists tend to be pretty useless too. But the point is that wealth does not correlate with hard-workingness or spend-thriftiness or whatever implication your argument from personal choice is meant to create (because presumably "playing politics and knowing the right people" is not the moral economy you're advocating for?)
> I was mostly talking about wealthy, developed countries like the US.
There are people in that class in the US, too. As is well documented by now, many Walmart workers have to rely on food stamps to get by. In the UK, many families rely on food banks, which is literally charity. "Working poor" is a real concept, perhaps one you're too abstracted from to be aware of.
> I can’t help but notice that you’re moving the goalposts considerably, however.
Goalpost, your own quote: "Financial independence is a consequence of individual choices. Most workers can achieve financial independence by the time they are elderly."
It's just not true except for people who can access the middle class and above.
> If you define “working class” as everyone who needs to work to earn an income, to the degree of explicitly denying the existence of a “middle class” at all
I don't. I explicitly defined middle class as people who have to work for a wage but also have access to capital. Working class to middle class to capitalist class is continuous, not discrete.
> you’re talking about people like software engineers who actually do own stock and could retire early if they wanted to.
Yeah, true enough, and good for them (us). But that's not most people.
Good for you. This whole subthread started when I was arguing with this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28617665), which states:
> People often categorise themselves as middle class just because they have a decent job and a mortgage - they are in fact just labour. None of their income comes from capital.
> Middle class is mostly a myth, unless you can quit your job and maintain your lifestyle, you are labour, not capital.
I think you are taking my comments completely out of this context and mistakenly inferring lots of things that I didn't say. To wit:
> the tables still need waiting, food still needs harvesting etc. You can't run an economy on just middle managers, software engineers and financiers; what do you think happens to everybody else who doesn't get the "personal choice" to earn above the average wage?
People can develop skills throughout their lives. I don't disagree that there are some people who have to spend their entire lives working as unskilled labor, but I think this is a minority of the working population. Again, I said "most", not "all", which is what you seem to have inferred.
> But the point is that wealth does not correlate with hard-workingness or spend-thriftiness or whatever implication your argument from personal choice is meant to create
My only intended implication is that, contrary to ClumsyPilot's claim that the middle class is "mostly a myth", members of the middle classes are often capable of achieving financial independence, but end up not doing so as a consequence of their personal choices. You seem to be again inferring some all-or-nothing absolute statement that I didn't make.
> "Working poor" is a real concept, perhaps one you're too abstracted from to be aware of.
You seem to be inferring that I claim the working poor don't exist. I only said the working poor are a minority of the working population. Another all-or-nothing inference.