More than a third of Americans earning at least $250,000 annually say they are living paycheck to paycheck, underscoring how inflation is taking a bigger bite out of Americans’ budgets at all ends of the pay spectrum.
People here need to do better class analysis. People making $250,000 are still working class and share an unfair tax burden. They aren’t owners with their wealth growing passively. Some could be living in a high cost of living area, or some maybe irresponsible with their money, they are still workers and are still being robbed of their labour.
No, they don’t. On the surface level, sure, we all want more money and less work hours. But that overlooks the details of the specific professions/industries and their relative position to capital, or just simply their income.
For example, abolishing tipping culture by instating minimum wage is good. But there’s still a lot of service workers who make a lot more money from tips compared to a fixed wage, so they rather fuck everyone else to maintain their position. Ask a silicon valley tech worker who they think should deserves 6 figure salaries. Ask them if they want to build affordable housing next door to their home. Ask a STEM major if social workers deserve the same salary as them, or what they consider ‘useless majors.’ Ask a pig if they’re willing to stand in solidarity with striking food workers. This doesn’t mean that all of them are like this, but the majority of them are.
Sometimes these professions and industries collide in unity, like in Argentina with cops and workers protesting against Millei. But there are stark differences overall.
The fact that we have a labour aristocracy doesn’t mean that their fundamental interests are different. The actual problem is that people in that bracket often don’t see themselves as part of the working class. However, a lot of the people in tech are now discovering that they are not in fact capitalists as stuff like mass layoffs start to hit them personally. So, the issue is with lack of political education, and divisions within labour that prevent a unified front against capital from forming.
That’s not necessarily true. Global north labour aristocrats get paid higher, and in this example significantly higher, than global south proletariats because of the global system of exploitation.
Through various mechanisms of global value transfer, labour aristocrats functionality exploit the proletariat proper.
Labour aristocrats are not necessarily being robbed of their labour so much as they are part of the process of robbing others of theirs; and upset that they aren’t robbing quite as much as they would like because someone else, the bourgeois proper, is more effective at the robbing.
Living paycheck-to-paycheck doesn’t necessarily mean hardship, and LendingClub makes the distinction between those can pay their bills easily and those who can’t. Only a fraction of high earners – roughly one in ten – reported issues covering all their household expenses in April, according to the survey.
Assuming this is remotely truthful, they may be ‘robbed’ of their labor but they’re living pretty comfortably. I don’t know how the survey was worded or whether or not these people consider themselves living “paycheck to paycheck,” but it’s pretty clear their ‘struggle’ is wildly different than that of the average wagie.
Anyone would be screwed if they lost their jobs, but if you can easily pay your bills and live a lifestyle you find comfortable and enjoyable, chances are you’ll survive temporary unemployment at a much better rate than someone who has to decide whether he should eat or skip the meal and let his dog eat.
They aren’t owners with their wealth growing passively.
The article doesn’t go into detail about the specifics if their income, but you don’t need to be an owner to benefit from passive investments. You just gave to have the money to invest in the first place
People here need to do better class analysis. People making $250,000 are still working class and share an unfair tax burden. They aren’t owners with their wealth growing passively. Some could be living in a high cost of living area, or some maybe irresponsible with their money, they are still workers and are still being robbed of their labour.
Exactly, all the people who sell their labour for a living have a common class interest.
No, they don’t. On the surface level, sure, we all want more money and less work hours. But that overlooks the details of the specific professions/industries and their relative position to capital, or just simply their income.
For example, abolishing tipping culture by instating minimum wage is good. But there’s still a lot of service workers who make a lot more money from tips compared to a fixed wage, so they rather fuck everyone else to maintain their position. Ask a silicon valley tech worker who they think should deserves 6 figure salaries. Ask them if they want to build affordable housing next door to their home. Ask a STEM major if social workers deserve the same salary as them, or what they consider ‘useless majors.’ Ask a pig if they’re willing to stand in solidarity with striking food workers. This doesn’t mean that all of them are like this, but the majority of them are.
Sometimes these professions and industries collide in unity, like in Argentina with cops and workers protesting against Millei. But there are stark differences overall.
The fact that we have a labour aristocracy doesn’t mean that their fundamental interests are different. The actual problem is that people in that bracket often don’t see themselves as part of the working class. However, a lot of the people in tech are now discovering that they are not in fact capitalists as stuff like mass layoffs start to hit them personally. So, the issue is with lack of political education, and divisions within labour that prevent a unified front against capital from forming.
most silicon valley 6 figure salaried workers do not own a home… nor will they ever unless they leave silicon valley or they win the IPO lottery
That’s not necessarily true. Global north labour aristocrats get paid higher, and in this example significantly higher, than global south proletariats because of the global system of exploitation.
Through various mechanisms of global value transfer, labour aristocrats functionality exploit the proletariat proper.
Labour aristocrats are not necessarily being robbed of their labour so much as they are part of the process of robbing others of theirs; and upset that they aren’t robbing quite as much as they would like because someone else, the bourgeois proper, is more effective at the robbing.
Assuming this is remotely truthful, they may be ‘robbed’ of their labor but they’re living pretty comfortably. I don’t know how the survey was worded or whether or not these people consider themselves living “paycheck to paycheck,” but it’s pretty clear their ‘struggle’ is wildly different than that of the average wagie.
Anyone would be screwed if they lost their jobs, but if you can easily pay your bills and live a lifestyle you find comfortable and enjoyable, chances are you’ll survive temporary unemployment at a much better rate than someone who has to decide whether he should eat or skip the meal and let his dog eat.
The article doesn’t go into detail about the specifics if their income, but you don’t need to be an owner to benefit from passive investments. You just gave to have the money to invest in the first place
You’re not doing better class analysis, you’re doing class reductionism