> I doubt you are an actual member of the bourgeoisie

I wouldn't be so sure of that on HN. (Also noting you're using the Marxist definition rather than the default dictionary definition, which is "middle class".)

A well-paid tech employee with a non-trivial amount of company stock is, strictly speaking, an "owner of the means of production". Even if you want to quibble with that, their interests are certainly well-aligned with that group - to the point that you generally won't hear a peep out of them as things get more and more dystopian, because of what Upton Sinclair observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

> I must conclude you just enjoy a starving and undereducated mass of parents and children you look down upon for their poor moral character?

It's much simpler than that. It's pure, unadulterated "I got mine and you ain't touchin' it". There's no real thinking that goes beyond that purely selfish position. The consequences aren't seriously considered, they're just taken as part of the natural order. Any causal connection is denied, rationalized by accusations of laziness, inferiority, etc.

You're right, it's probably just that. My mistake to read too deeply into someone like this.

I was using Marx's definition, and I am a member of that class, so defined.

My existing wealth and ongoing income of seven figures is derived almost entirely from capital accumulation.

I am knowingly and actively betraying my immediate class interest, here and elsewhere, because I'd rather my wealth increase more modestly to ensure we all live in vibrant society.

I do think it is foolish for salaried white collar workers not to see what is coming and begin unionization efforts; Their interests are ever more misaligned with capital with every year that passes.