The “middle class” is just the working class with debt. In class struggle terms, its not “rich vs poor”, it’s “owners vs workers”. If you have to work to support yourself, that tells you all you need to know.
I have relatives that own their house as well as a few rental properties, but they also work normal jobs, they get the new iPhone (or sometimes Samsung Phone) every year, they rarely use public transit, always drive their cars. I’m assuming they have health insurance as well. And I also heard they have other investments besides rental income (as in stocks)
Now I don’t know if they need to work, but they definitely have enough rental income to get by even if they lose their jobs.
I think an easier interpretation than the “owners vs workers” in this day and age is, are they billionaires. If you’re not a billionaire or close to it, you should be on the side of the working class.
The billionaires that make up only 1% of the population ans own nearly half the wealth of the entire world are the problem.
$10M and up would probably qualify. Below that, people would still need to work to maintain what they have with some measure of comfort and dealing with risk, inflation. Above that, they should be able to be self sustaining without working for a paycheque.
When I bought my current home, I rented out my previous home to friends of friends. They covered the payments on that house until they were in a situation where they could get a loan to buy it from me. There were no yachts or caviar for me during those years.
Renting out one or two homes doesn’t make someone “owner class”.
I think the line is when the primary bread winner is your tenant. Covering costs of mortgage only is a nice thing to do, profiting off of them beyond the mortgage is exploitation. That’s the difference, your assertion at the end is highly dependent on how they choose the rates for said houses and whether they profit off the work of others in that transaction.
That’s a really good way of putting it. We have the wealthy, the poor, and the poor who’ve been given scraps by the wealthy and are complicit in protecting them. The “middle class” believe they can gain more in scraps than they can by revolution. And so it continues.
The “middle class” is just the working class with debt. In class struggle terms, its not “rich vs poor”, it’s “owners vs workers”. If you have to work to support yourself, that tells you all you need to know.
I have relatives that own their house as well as a few rental properties, but they also work normal jobs, they get the new iPhone (or sometimes Samsung Phone) every year, they rarely use public transit, always drive their cars. I’m assuming they have health insurance as well. And I also heard they have other investments besides rental income (as in stocks)
Now I don’t know if they need to work, but they definitely have enough rental income to get by even if they lose their jobs.
Idk what class that is supposed to be.
Does it matter? These are just concepts. Marxists would tell you theyre petit-bourgeoisie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie
Ultimately, supporting the working class helps everyone.
I think an easier interpretation than the “owners vs workers” in this day and age is, are they billionaires. If you’re not a billionaire or close to it, you should be on the side of the working class.
The billionaires that make up only 1% of the population ans own nearly half the wealth of the entire world are the problem.
$10M and up would probably qualify. Below that, people would still need to work to maintain what they have with some measure of comfort and dealing with risk, inflation. Above that, they should be able to be self sustaining without working for a paycheque.
Sounds to me like petite bourgeoise. Wannabe owner class
deleted by creator
Theyre landlords so yes, they basically are
Buncha people in here still don’t get how this works…
When I bought my current home, I rented out my previous home to friends of friends. They covered the payments on that house until they were in a situation where they could get a loan to buy it from me. There were no yachts or caviar for me during those years.
Renting out one or two homes doesn’t make someone “owner class”.
You had them cover your other mortgage. These people can coast off of rent money. You are not the same.
“My uncle Greg is one of the good ones” yeah yeah I’ve heard it before, go read some theory
You must be right, because generalizations are always 100% accurate.
Theory and practice are the same in theory, but in practice, they are different.
I think the line is when the primary bread winner is your tenant. Covering costs of mortgage only is a nice thing to do, profiting off of them beyond the mortgage is exploitation. That’s the difference, your assertion at the end is highly dependent on how they choose the rates for said houses and whether they profit off the work of others in that transaction.
That’s a really good way of putting it. We have the wealthy, the poor, and the poor who’ve been given scraps by the wealthy and are complicit in protecting them. The “middle class” believe they can gain more in scraps than they can by revolution. And so it continues.