Well this is why I made the post, I don’t know if OP was doing it but my comment is directed more towards the person who made that sign.
Most people are working class because they lack the resources and status from generational wealth.
Edit that said, I don’t think it’s fair to make someone feel bad about what they were born into. If someone is actively working against the betterment of other people’s lives, that’s a separate issue.
The thing is unlike all other things you can be born into, wealth can be given up. You can’t give up being black or poor, but if you’re born into generational wealth to the point you’re of the ownership class by default, you can give that up and get a job.
Why should someone give up their wealth? For most people, wealth serves as a way for self determination.
Edit we also baselessly assume that working class people have better ethics or morals than some wealthier counterpart. This isn’t necessarily true.
Fact is though that people are inherently self-preserving. There’s nothing bad about it per se, but it can result in callous behaviors. Animals developed altruistic behaviors for group preservation, which is an extension of self preservation. But overall, someone will always look to self preserve. Helping out a family member or neighbor or friend is also an act of self preservation because they’re your network. Doing charity is an act of self-preservation because you want to believe in a larger network of good humans. Progressives need to build their policies around this basic fact.
Second, progressives will benefit from acknowledging that people have two needs: 1) some understanding of what it means to be human beyond the basics of mating, shelter, and fitting into a group, and 2) some way to exercise individuality and engage in self determination.
Religion and spirituality cover need 1, and economic tools cover need 2. However, all religions are trash fantasy, and our economic tools don’t work for people who they don’t work for. Humanitarian ideals are a better substitute for religion, and we need some form of Nordic model socialism which helps even out bad luck in people’s lives.
But saying that someone shouldn’t be wealthy is wrong. Wealth accumulation isn’t the problem. The problem is sociopathy which neglects basic social contracts. People are not here to be servants or serfs or slaves. People deserve opportunities for self determination, and our current system is not providing that for some.
I think you’d be hard pressed convincing anyone that a physician or lawyer acting as an independent contractor and selling their professional services for $200+/hr is working class.
If you can’t afford your lifestyle without working, you’re working class. If you become homeless without work, you’re working class. If you’re a few missed paychecks away from having to rely on savings for maintaining your life, you’re working class.
We’d have a more reasonable and progressive society if people were honest about their lack of social safety nets.
I think you’d be hard pressed convincing anyone that a physician or lawyer acting as an independent contractor and selling their professional services for $200+/hr is working class.
That is indeed your opinion and not what the working class is. That is what I meant by gatekeeping, thank you for demonstrating it again.
I understand now that you are using the communist definition, which is not the definition that’s widely agreed upon but is popular here. Another user clarified that. Thanks and glad we could clear things up.
Gatekeeping what working class is. That’s new. Just thought it meant that you worked for a living instead of being an “owner class”
Well this is why I made the post, I don’t know if OP was doing it but my comment is directed more towards the person who made that sign.
Most people are working class because they lack the resources and status from generational wealth.
Edit that said, I don’t think it’s fair to make someone feel bad about what they were born into. If someone is actively working against the betterment of other people’s lives, that’s a separate issue.
The thing is unlike all other things you can be born into, wealth can be given up. You can’t give up being black or poor, but if you’re born into generational wealth to the point you’re of the ownership class by default, you can give that up and get a job.
Why should someone give up their wealth? For most people, wealth serves as a way for self determination.
Edit we also baselessly assume that working class people have better ethics or morals than some wealthier counterpart. This isn’t necessarily true.
Fact is though that people are inherently self-preserving. There’s nothing bad about it per se, but it can result in callous behaviors. Animals developed altruistic behaviors for group preservation, which is an extension of self preservation. But overall, someone will always look to self preserve. Helping out a family member or neighbor or friend is also an act of self preservation because they’re your network. Doing charity is an act of self-preservation because you want to believe in a larger network of good humans. Progressives need to build their policies around this basic fact.
Second, progressives will benefit from acknowledging that people have two needs: 1) some understanding of what it means to be human beyond the basics of mating, shelter, and fitting into a group, and 2) some way to exercise individuality and engage in self determination.
Religion and spirituality cover need 1, and economic tools cover need 2. However, all religions are trash fantasy, and our economic tools don’t work for people who they don’t work for. Humanitarian ideals are a better substitute for religion, and we need some form of Nordic model socialism which helps even out bad luck in people’s lives.
But saying that someone shouldn’t be wealthy is wrong. Wealth accumulation isn’t the problem. The problem is sociopathy which neglects basic social contracts. People are not here to be servants or serfs or slaves. People deserve opportunities for self determination, and our current system is not providing that for some.
Defining a phrase is not gatekeeping.
I think you’d be hard pressed convincing anyone that a physician or lawyer acting as an independent contractor and selling their professional services for $200+/hr is working class.
Some of the only working class people actually making anywhere near what they should be making
If you work for your paycheck, you’re working class… If your “money works for you” you’re not
If you can’t afford your lifestyle without working, you’re working class. If you become homeless without work, you’re working class. If you’re a few missed paychecks away from having to rely on savings for maintaining your life, you’re working class.
We’d have a more reasonable and progressive society if people were honest about their lack of social safety nets.
That is indeed your opinion and not what the working class is. That is what I meant by gatekeeping, thank you for demonstrating it again.
I understand now that you are using the communist definition, which is not the definition that’s widely agreed upon but is popular here. Another user clarified that. Thanks and glad we could clear things up.