It's a good thing that was underlined or I wouldn't know what part of this was important.
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
1657 points (96.2% liked)
Work Reform
9976 readers
2 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think anyone has defined what "upper" "middle" and "lower" classes are too me. I just take it for granted that people who are wealthy (passive income kind of people) are "upper" class, the "middle" class is people getting by adequately. Not really suffering, or fighting to "make ends meet" so to speak, maybe a bit of savings... And "lower" class are people who struggle to pay their bills, live in low cost housing, have few luxuries, etc. Basically, how much disposable income do you have and where does that income come from?
Working, with passive income sources, or not needing to work to cover expenses, is "upper".
Working, with some disposable income, perhaps some savings, but not enough to live on to cover expenses, is "middle"
And anyone without any kind of financial safety, living paycheck to paycheck, only making enough to cover direct living expenses, are "lower".
I have no idea if that's right; nobody has accurately defined it for me. I've always considered myself kind of "lower-middle class" aka, still making enough for some luxuries, but without any significant savings or buffer for financial stability. No issues meeting living expenses.... Kind of the bottom half of middle class, if you will. My father was the same; he was much better with money, mind you, and he was able to dedicate a larger percentage of his earnings to savings. He would forego luxuries and "upgrades" to save money... As long as things worked and the family was comfortable, he was fine with putting the money away. He wouldn't hesitate to spend to replace something that's important, like buying a car to get around when the old one was too broken to work and/or be fixed. But if the vehicle worked, he wouldn't replace it just because it was a bit older.
IDK, I'm working. I need to work to afford to live. I'm almost never at risk of not being able to pay for something I need or want, aside from big ticket items (well into the thousands).... I'm just some guy.
It's not just money. It's also breeding/family.
Watch the guilded age.
Servants are working class
The people with money, even old money are middle class.
The dukes and upwards are upper class.
In modern America Upper class are the dynastic families
You basically have it, uhh, right on the money, so to speak. I think a lot of other people try to make more specific, scientific definitions, but once you get into the meat and potatoes of, what is a "necessary" expense, what is a reasonable amount of comfortable savings, yadda yadda, you start to see the cracks form. Realistically the only solid definitions that I think I've ever seen have mostly just been made on the basis of people not having to work at all, to live, vs people who have to have a job. There's probably a very highly qualified definition of "middle class" out there, but I'm not sure if it would match the idea of "middle class", and if it would also illustrate anything valuable for anyone, really. Especially if you're going based on the former definition of "needs to work to live", then most middle class definitions you'd come up with would probably also fall into working class.
I dunno. It's interesting to me how many people kind of get caught up on what I see as semantic arguments, rather than analyzing arguments around like, oh, do we like a capitalist structure of ownership, like a corp, or do we like a worker structure of ownership, like a co-op? It hits me as being a very kind of moralistic argument about "leeches" and "capitalists not contributing to society", when really I think we should be caring about what's a more ideal/efficient way to live, rather than caring about, you know, whether or not somebody should be defined as middle class, or petite bourgeois, or whatever. It's basically the same argument either way, but I find the framing to be pretty important, and often overlooked.
Well, I certainly don't give what "class" I am any thought day to day. Only on rare occasions like this, do I even give it any consideration at all.
I'm part of the workforce, I do my job, I collect a paycheck, I go home and spend time with my family. I'm not complicated, I don't subscribe to "hustle" culture, and I don't have any need to be wealthy, influential or otherwise noteworthy to anyone outside of my friends, family and coworkers. I'm just not that person. Even inside of those circles, I don't see any one person being in charge, except for my direct manager and whatnot in a work context; everything is cooperative.
That works for me, maybe I'm strange in that respect, but I'm okay with it. I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm one class or another. I work to live, not the other way around.
view more: next ›