defining classes is complicated. if you do it based on income percentile it will always be arbitrary and never reflect actual economic relations.

the most accepted way to divide in socialist circles is based off where your income comes from, your relation to capital. if you have to work for someone else thats working class (proletariat), if you can be independent you are professional or middle class, if you own the means of production for others that makes you a capitalist. owning a house is only capital class if you rent it out.

from that pov almost all tech workers are professional or working class. with founder ceos its more complicated because they own capital but also work for themselves through their company so you can take them as either. i guess it depends on if you like that person.

▲

porridgeraisin an hour ago | parent [-]

"I define things so that I'm in the good set and _they_ are in the bad set".

It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.

▲

smallmancontrov an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Your incentives come from where your money comes from. This is a pretty basic concept and it's absurd to brush it off as a form of No True Scotsman.

You can get money from both labor and capital. This is called "middle class." Don't let it melt your brain, but don't oversimplify to "you owned a stock so are capital class" either. Just give the labor/capital percentages (ordinary income / capital gains) and note how it leans.

New grad tech worker: 100%/0%

Mid career tech worker: 50%/50%

Late career tech worker: 10%/90%

Retired: 0%/100%

▲

OGWhales an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They provided a decently accurate description of the working class vs the capitalist class. I don't think your reply fits here.

▲

lovich an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Most tech workers do not get compensated with stock. A fraction of the best compensated get stock. The next tier down get options with so many caveats that they are effectively worthless, and the tier below them are straight salary with no equity even entering the horizon for them.

And yea, once you start getting actual capital and start reaping the benefits of that wealth you start being identified as a capitalist in the socialist world view.

Edit: the comment I replied to originally had this sentence at the end

> Very typical for a certain type of folk. It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.

▲

porridgeraisin an hour ago | parent [-]

Eh? Which tech company doesn't give RSUs to fresh grads? Startups of course give options.

And how many american middle class+ (generalizing beyond tech workers) don't own equity?

	▲	officeplant 24 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Our corporation gives us worthless certificates for "money", that only pay out conditionally based on if the company gets re-evaluated for worth. Our 401K match maxes out at $50 per paycheck.
	▲	lovich an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You are in a bubble if you are surprised at the idea of companies not giving out stock, much less RSUs specifically. While it’s common in the big tech Silicon Valley companies there are thousands of other tech companies where the most they give are options, and I must repeat with a litany of caveats that make them effectively worthless, and even more where they only pay salary and have no way to gain equity at all. I am in a lower tier of the market than Silicon Valley and after 15 years of making over six figure salary I have not been given a single stock, and none of my employees or members of my social circles that don’t work at FAANGs have either.