I honestly think the "middle class" idea is just a fallacy. It feels like it's used by people to distance themselves from "working class" because they feel that working class is somehow beneath them. All of the middle class in todays parlance are just slightly more affluent working class. If you sell your time for money you are working class. If you make money from having money you are bourgeoisie.
If you have to think about which one you are you are working class. At a stretch you might consider the owner of a small tech company (say 5-10 employees) as petit bourgeoisie but the vast majority of small business owners (say mechanics, shop owners, small companies) are squarely in the working class. They may have employees but they still work, either for wages or as managers of those employees - which is work.
The usual American idea of “middle class” is mostly (thoufh it tends to be defined more by income than actual means of relating to the economy) a mix of the upper income segment of the primarily labor-dependent class (working class/proletariat) and the lower (comparatively) income segment of the mixed labor/capital-dependent class (petit bourgeoisie).
The middle class (petit bourgeoisie) is real, but its not centered around middle income (it is middle in the sense of being between the dominantly capital-dependent class and the dominantly labor-dependent class, primarily in how it relates to the economy, but in practice also on average, in income and wealth, but it is still an elite minority, just less so than the haut bourgeoisie that sits at the top.)
What is it about the owner of a small tech company that potentially bumps them into the middle class, in your view?
I like the definition I provided because it seems functional to me; it describes classes with labor-capital relationships, and describes how the incentives influence their behavior.
honestly the tech company person is probably not - I was just thinking of someone who started a what would be derisively called a "lifestyle business" and has basically retired earning a couple of million a year. Most small tech founders are still working for their crust.
What I don't like about the middle class definition is that it is to my mind just a subset of the working class but designed to drive a wedge between people who should be looking out for each other. It has the effect of attempting to align working class people with super rich capitalists. Interesting that "middle class" was the original name for the capitalists who were between the working class and the nobility, now we pretend that the middle class are working class adjacent.
There is some reasonable split between "bankrupted by missing even a single payment period" and "can live off dividends and saving by N years"
At the very least the second camp is the only one that can effectively vote with their wallets, Poorer and you can't afford the better alternatives, richer and you have better means of influence (Or deal with things that are low volume and less price sensitive)
> If you sell your time for money you are working class.
This would put a trader earning $3m/yr as working class. That’s fine I guess, but then we need another distinction, for the difference between that person and a minimum wage worker.
Now in all the conversations where we would say “working class” we use this new term, because we almost always mean things relating to income level rather than labour vs owner.
And so all we’ve done is changed the name for “working class”
> I honestly think the "middle class" idea is just a fallacy.
One definition I found reasonable was that it it "starts" with those that can meet their basic necessities (housing, food, transportation, healthcare) and still have funds left over for discretionary spending:
I don’t like this definition as much because it includes most people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck with minimal leisure expenditure, right?
Like if you by groceries, rent an apartment, have a bus pass, qualify for Medicare, and you have a Netflix account or get fast food (discretionary spending), then you seem to be middle class by this definition. Is that right? Maybe Medicare bumps you out. But ok, you can get the cheapest marketplace plan.
I mean, to be below middle class by this definition your expenses have to exactly match your revenue, or you are living beyond your means. So other than some tiny slice (in some perimeter vs area sense) of the populace, being working class seems to be definitionally unsustainable.
It is a definition so I can’t say it is wrong, but a spectrum that includes everyone who is not either actively in the process of running out of money, or able to quit working and become a capitalist, does not seem super useful to me.
If you have to think about which one you are you are working class. At a stretch you might consider the owner of a small tech company (say 5-10 employees) as petit bourgeoisie but the vast majority of small business owners (say mechanics, shop owners, small companies) are squarely in the working class. They may have employees but they still work, either for wages or as managers of those employees - which is work.