You must log in or # to comment.
There’s working class and there’s capitalists.
Some working class people make more than others but propaganda has made them think that they are a different class of people.
Middle class, upper middle class, upper class, lower class. They all go homeless after a single tragedy.
Middle class is such a stupid term. It doesn’t mean anything, almost everyone in society considers themselves middle class. It is only useful because of that self identification, so a politician can say “I’m helping the middle class” and 95% of society thinks the politician cares about them.
Middle class, upper middle class, upper class, lower class. They all go homeless after a single tragedy.
Uh, no. There have been all kinds of studies about that. About 40% of Americans are one missed paycheck away from financial disaster. But, that leaves about 60% who aren’t. The upper 10%, who are still mostly “working class” by this definition, can almost always weather a major event like the 2007/08 financial collapse without losing their homes. These are people who still work for a living: doctors, bankers, lawyers, upper managers, etc. but who have savings and investments. A financial collapse might mean drastic lifestyle changes, dipping into savings, maybe selling some things, but it doesn’t mean homelessness. In fact, a lot of people in this top 10% own a vacation home or a cottage or something. At worst they might have to sell that, while keeping their main property.
There is capital and there are the others.
Yeah, middle class may not be the goal, but without a middle class to have the resources and energy, there is no fight. So the first stage is to expand the middle class until it encompasses everyone whether in a financially positive or negative way.
In the US, “middle class” mostly means white collar jobs, not living paycheck to paycheck, some form of retirement savings, etc.
When people talk about “saving the middle class” it’s mostly about making sure that people who have those kinds of jobs don’t find themselves living paycheck to paycheck, having no retirement savings, and being on the brink of financial ruin.
There aren’t a lot of programs that “save the middle class” without helping people who are struggling even more than them. Programs like daycare for everyone are pitched as being for the middle class, but certainly help the “lower class” too. Occasionally there are things that mostly end up helping “middle class” people more than “working class” people. For example, any programs that benefit people who own a home don’t help people who rent. And, people in the “lower class” are more likely to be renters.
The problem is really one about messaging. People like to think they’re in the “middle class” or at the very worst “lower middle class”. If a program is sold as just helping the “lower class” or “working class”, then a lot of people don’t think it will help them, and that people who are lower on the ladder than them are getting benefits they’re not getting.
And finally, it’s really not capitalism that creates hierarchy. The systems that came before capitalism had even more rigid hierarchies. Before capitalism there was a literal “Aristocracy” who were born into a certain class and there was nothing that could change that class. Even if their family lost all their wealth and land, they were still legally above a rich merchant by right of birth. Capitalism certainly doesn’t abolish classes or result in perfect social mobility, but it is significantly better than the systems that came before it where your class at birth was fixed.
Getting rid of hierarchies is a noble goal, but it’s something that humanity has never managed to achieve. Given that, a more reasonable modern goal might be to focus on social mobility. So, rather than being stuck in whatever social stratum you were born into, you can move up and the rich can slip down. Right now, northern Europe has the best social mobility (and unsurprisingly has countries with a lot of “socialist” mix in their capitalist / socialist systems). Next are Western European countries. The former colonies of the UK are slightly below that, then the UK itself, then the US, which has among the worst social mobility for a modern, rich country.
In the end, it’s probably not to fight against “saving the middle class” because the kinds of programs that get that label tend to be socialist programs that help all working people. If you refuse to accept that kind of program and are only interested in overthrowing the entire system and hoping against hope that whatever replaces it is classless… well it would be the first time in history that ever happened.
Unfortunately for OP, there is always a ‘lower class’.
Finland has eliminated homelessness, and even they estimate that there are still 1000-2000 willfully homeless people.
That said, the working class, regardless of income, needs to quit with the stupid subdivision and laser-focus on the real enemy: the fucking billionaires.
Willfully homeless ≠ lower class. If someone chooses to live the vagabond lifestyle, that’s cool, their choice.
It’s only a problem when there isn’t a choice, which is usually the case in the world (…not in scandinavia, the most progressive region).
Agree on the need for focusing on chopping billionaires.
Willfully homeless ≠ lower class.
You can say that, but you and I know that the vast majority of our species won’t ever see it that way.
“middle class” = somebody who can live comfortably without being excessively rich
it does not mean that there has to be a lower class
What is it in the middle of?
You’ve never been to a deli where the smallest drink size is a medium?
The one’s I go to call that “regular”
Okay then, let’s “save the regular class.” Better?
what is midgard in the middle of?
The gods above and the dwarves below.
