this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
1377 points (97.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

5778 readers
2711 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thesprongler@lemmy.world 156 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Fuck outta here with your weak-ass bones!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 24 points 9 months ago

When the revolution comes, you will not be spared.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 96 points 9 months ago (13 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.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This is it, it’s super simple.

If I dialed back everything, I could probably live a few years off my savings/investments, and selling some stuff. But I would be just burning trough my money, and I would need to go back to work eventually. So I’m still working class, even if I’m in a luckier situation than most people.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Electricblush@lemmy.world 53 points 9 months ago (3 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.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

Amongst the little mice fighting under the table for crumbs falling from the cake being divided above, once in a while one finds a slightly larger crumb, proudly raises it over his head and shouts: "See?! The system woks!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Clent@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"But through my retirement I own .000000001% of a company!"

Having stock in a company doesn't make you a capitalist anymore than checking out a bible from the library makes you a Christian.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

.000000001% of a $100 billion company is $1. The average person could own per year $5000 if they used automatic deposits and got the employer match.

I know you are trying to exaggerate to make a point, but don't discourage people from getting the employer match if they can.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (10 children)

I employee matched for years just to watch our CEO tank our stock to 1/5 the original price.

Point being, remember it's still an investment in a single stock and comes with that amount of risk.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • 10,000 seconds = 2.8 hours
  • 100,000 seconds = 1.2 days
  • 1,000,000 seconds = 11.6 days
  • 10,000,000 seconds = 116 days
  • 100,000,000 seconds = 3 years
  • 1,000,000,000 seconds = 32 years

Don't be fooled. It's billionaires against everyone else. Even multimillionaires are closer to the everyday person. The working class consists of two groups: those without disposable income (nominally those with "hours" in income), and those with some disposable income (days in income).

If they ain't got a "year" in income, their they're one of us.

[–] rando895@lemmy.ml 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think it's better to think of it like this:

How do you make your money? Do you need to make a wage? Or can you let your property (land, buildings, stocks, etc.) be your income?

The real amount doesn't matter, it's whether you have to work to live or not.

If you have to work, you are the working class. If you don't, you are the owner/capitalist class. But your analysis is still somewhat correct: millionaires and small business owners are closer to the working class than billionaires, it does still matter how they make it though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago

Modern America is like Tsarist Russia. A tiny elite, a small 'middle class,' and a vast army of poor people.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's generally considered safe to withdraw 4% of your nest egg each year. Someone with 2 million can support an 80k/year retirement.

The average multimillionaire is literally just any person with a six figure salary who has been saving for retirement and is nearing retirement. You basically can't retire without at least being a millionaire.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 36 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What if I can miss two paychecks? Super-rich, or?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 33 points 9 months ago

GET EMMMM!! WHERES MY GUILLOTINE!?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 35 points 9 months ago (10 children)

Yeah people don’t believe me when i say middle class is 300k because they want to be middle class

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 40 points 9 months ago (11 children)

A person making 300k can still be working class. Unless you own capital that makes enough money for you to live off, you are working class

[–] rando895@lemmy.ml 20 points 9 months ago

Exactly. It's how you make your money, not how much you make.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago (7 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Aux@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's an American point of view. Here in Britain there are pretty much only two main classes: aristocracy and dirty peasants. Doesn't matter what you do and how rich you are, if your ancestors didn't sit at the round table - you're a peasant.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago (3 children)

There are 4 in the UK.

  • The upper class aka the aristocracy. Born into money and titles.

  • Middle class. Rich enough to live purely off their investments, don't need to work, but also don't the the old blood titles.

*Upper working class (what the media likes calling the middle class). Lives well, but reliant on a job income.

  • Lower working class (what the media likes calling working class). Lives paycheck to paycheck and has to trade luxuries off to make ends meet.

The bottom 2 are peasants. The 2nd are "vaguely acceptable breeding stock/upstart peasants.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't think that's true. There's definitely the three classes, but many people believe they're middle class when they're not.

It's basically impossible to become upper class. I think I read somewhere that it takes 3 or 4 successive generations at somewhere like Eton to be considered upper class.

[–] saintshenanigans@programming.dev 31 points 9 months ago

ITT: lots of people making very concrete statements about cost of living that somehow apply equally to every single city in the US at the same time

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 26 points 9 months ago (7 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."

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 35 points 9 months ago (3 children)

As with many terms describing social class, working class is defined and used in many different ways. One definition, used by many socialists, is that the working class includes all those who have nothing to sell but their labour. These people used to be referred to as the proletariat. In that sense, the working class today includes both white and blue-collar workers, manual and menial workers of all types, excluding only individuals who derive their livelihood from business ownership and the labour of others.

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how the OP differs in this definition. If you HAVE to work to survive, you aren't earning a livelihood from ownership and the labor of others (passive income).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] N0body@sh.itjust.works 24 points 9 months ago

Workers work because they have to. Owners own and work if they want to.

[–] Cool_Name@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I can afford to miss a paycheck. In fact, I'm currently planning for a four month stretch where I'll need to live off of savings. Thinking that I, with my 11 year old honda fit, 10 year old PC, and my 2 roommates, am in the top 20% of this stat is very alarming.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ilflish@lemm.ee 13 points 9 months ago (7 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

[–] Microw@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] kamen@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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

[–] dfc09@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

She's probably American and talking about America. We shouldn't have to qualify every single thing we say, if it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply. It's certainly worthwhile to the discussion to add your own experiences in places it doesn't apply, but just pointing out that she didn't explicitly say she's talking about America (even though she very nearly did) isn't super relevant.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] obinice@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Bold of you to assume I'm American.

[–] Leg@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›