Comment by oarabbus_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by oarabbus_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If you're upper-middle class (which describes the majority of tech workers), you aren't part of the working class, by definition. Most definitions of working-class include individuals in low-paying, unskilled and/or manual labor jobs.

If you're a tech worker in a major city and your take-home pay is $5000 and your rent is $1600, the fact you're spending $X/3 on rent is a choice. You are probably living in an area of your choice, have some amenities of your choice, you have a place to yourself or at least a private bathroom, etc. The working class isn't afforded that luxury. The fact someone you know lives in a $4000/mo high rise you cannot afford does not make you working class. If you could quit your job and survive for a year without going on welfare, you likely aren't working class. If your car broke tomorrow and you could get a replacement without significant financial hardship, you likely aren't working class.

I don't know if that's actually your salary or rent, but such numbers are typical for tech workers in places like SF and NYC (and of course many make significantly more than this). If your rent is significantly higher than the median mortgage ($1200) you probably aren't working class.

>Pew Research defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median.

>Household income, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, refers to the combined gross cash income of all members of a household, defined as a group of people living together, who are 15 years or older.

That is ~135k (pretax) in the USA, and perhaps 40% higher for a state like CA. This is actually a rather conservative definition: take the median family income (which can include two working adults and also working children), double that number, and include anyone making _more_ than that.

Of course you're aware that the "working class," as you've defined it so well, has pretty definitively abandoned the Democratic party.

That seems irrelevant to the discussion?

Not exactly. Someone was describing himself as "working class" in a political discussion about Severance, a discussion which was tending heavily towards as Marxism. Marxism was originally about "the workers."

So an observation about current leanings of the workers is hardly irrelevant.

I’m not sure, there might be some misunderstanding here. The discussion tends towards marxism because marxist theory uses the same term heavily. That does not mean marxists are the only one using it (social psychologists do as well), nor does it mean marxists rely on it (they don’t, but it is helpful). You could say, marxism is a corollary discussion to this article.

The post this spun from is actually a really good comment, as it states clearly how this article relates to us tech workers, despite mostly belonging to upper class (or at least the upper-middle class):

> "upper class" tech workers (many of those who browse this site) who are still bound by IP and trade secret laws and are effectively insulated from the fruits of their labor.

This is a comment on the worker-boss dynamic which marxism describes in detail. And the realization is that the same dynamic extends even when the worker belongs to a social class not usually described in marxism.

What political party a member of the working class tends to vote is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Though it is fun to ponder. The democratic party is in essence not a worker’s party and in theory it is not in the interest of the average worker to vote for them. In fact, I would argue that most voters in the USA never voted for them en masse (with the exception of the great depression when F.D.R. advocated the new deal). Most workers have historically remained non-voting, and those that do vote do so for different reasons then to further the interest of the working class. That is, if they do vote democratic they do so despite their capitalist agenda, not because of their pro worker agenda.

Now I actually do like this tangent—even though it is irrelevant to the post this sub-thread spun from—because in the show, one of the worker’s “outie” is actually an advocate for the ruling class’ political party, who’s interest align with the business elite. She treats her “innie” with nothing but disrespect and is willing to let her suffer so she can exploit her labor. The struggle between her innie and her outie is a nice allegory for class struggle in general, and the fact that she is tied to a political party is a nice statement on how our political system tends to align it self with the owning class, and against the workers.

The Marxist definition of working class (i.e., the proletariat) had nothing to do with income distributions.

Does the person you’re replying to make decisions about how profits are allocated in the company? What product the company is going to make? Do they make the big hiring and firing decisions? No, probably not. They’re likely a software engineer. They sell their labor in order to be able to make money and sustain themselves. Ergo they are part of the working class.

>The Marxist definition of working class (i.e., the proletariat) had nothing to do with income distributions.

You're essentially summing up the flaws in the author's attempt to apply Marxist theory to a modern, capitalist society. The core differentiation between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is financial and social/cultural capital, or lack thereof. Also relevant are education (cultural influence and power) and property ownership, as they relate to upward mobility (this also aligns with the British working/middle/upper class definitions).

>Does the person you’re replying to make decisions about how profits are allocated in the company?

By this definition a Google midlevel engineer without any decision making power who earns near 300k is the working class, but a tech startup COO or CTO making $200k is not; I doubt most people would agree these people are in different classes in modern society. Applying strict Marxist definitions (which as you say lack any consideration of income distribution) to a modern capitalist society is a fallacy.

>They sell their labor in order to be able to make money and sustain themselves.

Doctors, engineers, pharmacists, lawyers, pilots all sell their labor to make money. But they tend to be property owners, own investments/equity (means of production), and are highly skilled, educated, and have cultural capital/respect in society. This aligns with the Marxist bourgeoise and middle/upper-class definition. Whereas a plumber or electrician making $100k who self-owns their business but not their home or any investments does not have the same financial or cultural power and more closely aligns with the definition of proletariat.

> a tech startup COO or CTO making $200k

With the title of "CTO" at a tech startup, I'd expect one to be a significant shareholder making nominal salary but, ultimately, your point stands: startup executives are just middle management of a distributed R&D department.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com