Not sure I'd characterize ex-FAANG employees, who are still likelier to get future job opportunities than people who loyally stuck it out at No-name Software Co in Des Moines, and who probably made 200k+ for a while, "little people".
But earning a salary that, when used well, can last several YEARS of unemployment, makes them a very different category of worker. These are the last workers that need help, of all the world's workers.
I mean, I guess it also depends on live at what standard of living. At the standard of living they are "accustomed to", or at the standard of living of someone making $50K a year? Some larger number of software engineers who have been making $250K could live on their investment income alone for equiv of $50K/year after taxes.
So, right, more of a spectrum than a binary -- you see why some people are dubious of whether a software engineer making $250K a year is really in the same class as a retail worker making $50K a year (or less; federal minimum wage is still $7.25; my state's minimum wage is $13.25, less than $30k/year, a shockingly small amount to many of us, that many people actually make)
On other conversations, people have suggested that whether you are a "boss" and can hire and fire is determinative. But again, a fast food "manager" might be making only $50K a year, while a software engineer who does not manage people might be making $250K or more. The software engineer is a "worker" who definitely has the same class interests as a walmart worker, but the fast food manager is definitely not? Doesn't really check out.
You say "the Marxist definition", but I think that's actually a huge over-simplification of a Marxist analysis. Your class position and interests have to do with your income, your "relationship to the means of production" (role in the economy), your wealth, and other things. And it's probably useful to consider more than 2 or even 3 classes, and sub-classes within classes.
I think it's a huge over-simplification to claim that every software engineer making $250K surely is in the same class and has the same class interests as every fast food worker making $12/hour. That's not in fact a good Marxist analysis at all.
The pandemic made it pretty clear to me that there is definitely a class divide between the people in jobs where they paid to work from home (or in many cases, especially at first, stay home and not work); and the people who had to come in to get paid and/or who were were told not to come/laid off because there was no work to do.
Compared to the average American? No, indeed, you wouldn’t.
Compared to the CEOs and major shareholders of the biggest companies out there? Yes, one could make the argument.
There’s a bigger financial gap between someone with 1 billion, or even 100 million, in the bank and someone making 200k than between someone working at minimum wage and someone making 200k.
Although there are other relevant factors that would be worth taking into consideration when making such comparisons (quality of life and financial security come to mind), most of us actually are very small fry compared to them.
Software and tech companies have had multiple boom and bust cycles since the 1980s. Even in good times there are always a few companies that simply don't make it. If you go into tech, that's a choice, you know you won't have a job for life, and you need to plan for such. If that makes you uncomfortable, go get a job with the government, or learn a trade (are plumbers ever short on work?), or become a doctor/lawyer.