this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

5708 readers
3857 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Bold of you to assume I'm American.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

That was silly of her. I mean, look at you? Clearly nowhere near America. She should apologize to you.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Middle class was originally defined as a class that gets at least some significant percent of their income from stocks bonds and other investments. I'm willing to bet that ain't you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Is this a definition common in a specific country outside the U.S.? I see this claim in multiple places in the thread, but that's not how it has been historically defined in the U.S. or in France where the term originated. Middle class in the original context evolved out of the mercantile class that traded goods in cities - neither aristocrat nor serf - during the middle ages. That original definition had nothing to do with investments.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

80% are not living paycheck to paycheck

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (23 children)

The person who makes the claim should prove it first

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Yes, the person making the claim that 80% live paycheck to paycheck should cite

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

you're also not the working poor if you live paycheck to paycheck and make 150k/year. you just fucking aren't, it's your own fault you're not saving money at that point

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I like how things are defaulting to the US as if that's the whole world.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I work paycheck to paycheck but if I told people how much I made and called myself poor I'd probably anger people. I just make sure that I do what's in my power to keep myself comfortable now, even if that means overspending on luxuries

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you have no financial reserves, you are IMO poor or stupid. One of both.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Which are you?

Edit: I’m going to go with both.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What I find interesting is how often statements like this that are trying to unify the working class (or whatever you end up calling it) just derails into semantics instead of actually people bringing out the pitchforks and shouting "eat the rich"

We are all fucked.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

Which sounds like the statement wasn't well crafted

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Lots of people in here fighting about what "working class" means. If you have to work to survive (other than minor household chores), you're working class. If you have enough money, or assets that you get dividends from or can borrow against, or passive income so you don't need a regular employment then you probably aren't working class.

Working Poor isn't as common and definition varies a lot.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I feel like there is a world in between of these two

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There really isn't. Each group has a wider pay rate than maybe is implied, but functionally, there isn't a role in capitalism between them. Wealthy people want us to think there is a wide range of classes so we argue with each other instead of cooperating against them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's a definition of "working class" but not generally what people outside certain academic contexts mean when they say that phrase; using the more common definition does not indicate "confusion about your class status."

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Buying into strategic labour divisions perpetuated by the ownership class for their benefit does not convey a comprehension of the language.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, insisting on using a nonstandard definition exclusive to a tiny minority of speakers, so that you can then talk past your interlocutor, wasting both of your time until they finally realize you're intentionally being an uncooperative speaker, makes way more sense. 🙄

I guess at least this way you get to feel a smug, undeserved sense of superiority in the process though, so who's to say which way is really better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ok ok guys let's drop the 5 dollar words eh? Im rate limited i can't be looking up all this shit.

But for real b, "working class" means you exchange your time for money, no cap. White collar vs blue collar shit is designed to separate the working class yo. Looky here, we like wikipedia right? Lemme link that shit

Members of the working class rely exclusively upon earnings from wage labour; thus, according to more inclusive definitions, the category can include almost all of the working population of industrialized economies, as well as those employed in the urban areas of non-industrialized economies or in the rural workforce

Now if you wanna argue the point, sure it can and does mean what youre talking about, but if you take a minute to think about it, which distinction makes sense?

Both definitions are alright, i personally think the inclusive definition is best, but everyone should be aware of both so we can all know what the heck the other's talking bout

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

My point is that Joe Blow off the streets who might be seeing the OP's tweet doesn't know (or care) that there's another, more niche definition - Joe Blow only knows "working class" as mainly people doing manual or unskilled labor (another term I see this problem with all too often), and "working poor" as the part of that class subsisting around or below poverty level.

So, if you're trying to get Joe Blow off the street (or pretty much any other regular person, for that matter) to understand, agree with, and support you, saying things that don't make sense, like "80% of Americans are working poor" or "unskilled labor doesn't exist", and then insisting that you're right when he objects, is only going to cause misunderstanding, and Joe probably does not care enough to learn the nonstandard definitions you think are better for whatever reason.

This isn't directed at you, but sometimes it's really not surprising that conservatives do so much better than socialists/communists at attracting working-class people to their cause, if only because they don't require a four-year bachelor's in the terminology of niche political theory to have a basic conversation with them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

Have your taken classes in debate? Im impressed how many times you worked your point in with adjectives here, and without even mentioning my wikipedia definition directly, completely dismissed it as both highbrow and niche. It would take a lot to unravel if i tried to engage with you directly, but if i did, it wouldn't really be fair since you didn't actually engage with any of mine. Not really.

Masterful, i respect your posting skill, i bet you wear a lot of people down.

Bye!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why do we keep trying to pervert defined terms?

The working poor are those who work at least 27 weeks a year and still have income below the poverty line.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because that definition is woefully inadequate to describe the conditions of people experiencing poverty.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I’m not sure how broadening it to include like half the country helps them?

Lots of people live paycheck to paycheck because they have to - other people live paycheck to paycheck because they want to drive a BMW and have a house 50% larger they can afford. They’re not the same.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Having to work to survive is the default state of nature, unless you are a baby or an elder. It doesn't mean you're oppressed.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What about our modern world makes you think humanity exsists in a default state of nature?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We don't live in a post-scarcity society, so the rules of nature still apply. People need food, water, shelter, energy and someone has to work to provide those things.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My fellow Lemmy user, we dont live in a post-scarity world because profits matter more than people in our Capitalist Society. We could live in a post-scarity world, but that would come at the cost of profits for the 1% who do effectively zero work.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

We literally destroy food in this country instead of giving it to people who have nothing. The "scarcity" is entirely manufactured.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

After years of working and saving, I can now afford to miss ONE paycheck. I'm no longer poor! /s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Capitalist scum!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›