Hmm. honestly, the lifestyle described here might cost some money, but if people are rich, they typically have 100x or 1000x the money needed to do even that.
The simplest way to classify “rich” is capitalist class. Those that no longer perform labor. Instead, their wealth passively generates wealth that sustains their lifestyle. There’s no set, defined number. Someone who is “rich” does not need to work and affords luxury.
Which, this is only facilitated via an exploited working class that are not fairly compensated for the labor that they perform and the profits of said labor is traded back and forth amongst said capitalists. Hence why the rich are a parasite class. Socialism for the wealthy and slavery for the workers.
Basic fundamentals of capitalism. Meritocracy is the myth that allows it to function similar to how a religious mandate provided legitimacy to a monarch.
The simplest way to classify “rich” is capitalist class. Those that no longer perform labor. Instead, their wealth passively generates wealth that sustains their lifestyle.
That means everybody who managed to retire is rich.
Retirees live off deferred compensation from their own labor in the form of savings, pensions, social security, etc. Capitalists live off returns generated by other people’s labor. The distinction isn’t whether you work, it’s where the income comes from.
And if retirees were actually ‘rich’ by your logic, elderly poverty wouldn’t be rising as benefits get gutted. People are committing petty crime in their 70s to survive. Poverty and crime are intrinsically linked, even against the belief that as age increases, the level of crime committed will decrease. That’s not a rich class, that’s a working class that got squeezed their whole lives and arrived at retirement without enough buffer.
The actual capitalist class never has that problem because their wealth compounds regardless of policy. Conflating ‘not working’ with ‘owning capital’ is exactly the meritocracy myth my previous comment was describing. It obscures who actually extracts value from whom.
This video was very informative on the retirement situation in America imo. When in reality, most of that “retirement money” is for people that would never need it given their vast wealth.
On some level, that is a useful way of looking at things. The reason for making the distinction between workers (people who sell their own time for a living) and owners (people who own for a living) is because they have different political interests. The workers benefit from paid sick leave, higher minimum wage, and from wellfare state stuff like progressive tax funded health care and all that. All of this disadvantages the owning class. And, if you assume retirees fund their retirements through investments (which is not generally true btw, private pensions are not the only model), this holds on some level for retirees as well. If their income depends on the profits of some company, then it is not to their benefit if that company needs to pay workers more.
It’s a simplification, but yes, it can be meaningful to think of retirees as “rich” in this sense for some political analyses.
And, if you assume retirees fund their retirements through investments (which is not generally true btw, private pensions are not the only model), this holds on some level for retirees as well. If their income depends on the profits of some company, then it is not to their benefit if that company needs to pay workers more.
When you have a public pension, the difference is just that you do not take it via profit, but via some sort of tax. So for pensioners in general, they do not want to increase the real pay of workers. It is also hard to argue that a government pension is not a form of wealth, when something similar on the private market is considered that.
In a public pension, there is some sort of tax, which is taken from workers to pay the pensions. If you want to increase pensions, you need to increase those taxes, hence everything else being equal you lower the real wage of workers.
Hmm. honestly, the lifestyle described here might cost some money, but if people are rich, they typically have 100x or 1000x the money needed to do even that.
The simplest way to classify “rich” is capitalist class. Those that no longer perform labor. Instead, their wealth passively generates wealth that sustains their lifestyle. There’s no set, defined number. Someone who is “rich” does not need to work and affords luxury.
Which, this is only facilitated via an exploited working class that are not fairly compensated for the labor that they perform and the profits of said labor is traded back and forth amongst said capitalists. Hence why the rich are a parasite class. Socialism for the wealthy and slavery for the workers.
Basic fundamentals of capitalism. Meritocracy is the myth that allows it to function similar to how a religious mandate provided legitimacy to a monarch.
That means everybody who managed to retire is rich.
Retirees live off deferred compensation from their own labor in the form of savings, pensions, social security, etc. Capitalists live off returns generated by other people’s labor. The distinction isn’t whether you work, it’s where the income comes from.
And if retirees were actually ‘rich’ by your logic, elderly poverty wouldn’t be rising as benefits get gutted. People are committing petty crime in their 70s to survive. Poverty and crime are intrinsically linked, even against the belief that as age increases, the level of crime committed will decrease. That’s not a rich class, that’s a working class that got squeezed their whole lives and arrived at retirement without enough buffer.
The actual capitalist class never has that problem because their wealth compounds regardless of policy. Conflating ‘not working’ with ‘owning capital’ is exactly the meritocracy myth my previous comment was describing. It obscures who actually extracts value from whom.
This video was very informative on the retirement situation in America imo. When in reality, most of that “retirement money” is for people that would never need it given their vast wealth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRLxcx79OvE
On some level, that is a useful way of looking at things. The reason for making the distinction between workers (people who sell their own time for a living) and owners (people who own for a living) is because they have different political interests. The workers benefit from paid sick leave, higher minimum wage, and from wellfare state stuff like progressive tax funded health care and all that. All of this disadvantages the owning class. And, if you assume retirees fund their retirements through investments (which is not generally true btw, private pensions are not the only model), this holds on some level for retirees as well. If their income depends on the profits of some company, then it is not to their benefit if that company needs to pay workers more.
It’s a simplification, but yes, it can be meaningful to think of retirees as “rich” in this sense for some political analyses.
When you have a public pension, the difference is just that you do not take it via profit, but via some sort of tax. So for pensioners in general, they do not want to increase the real pay of workers. It is also hard to argue that a government pension is not a form of wealth, when something similar on the private market is considered that.
I don’t understand this. Why?
Why give more to the workers, when you can take it yourself?
Yeah, so that argument makes sense when your pension is privately funded. I can’t really connect the dots for the public ones.
In a public pension, there is some sort of tax, which is taken from workers to pay the pensions. If you want to increase pensions, you need to increase those taxes, hence everything else being equal you lower the real wage of workers.
it depends on your standards.
For some people a $10,000 trip is poverty lifestyle or their heating bill for the month.
What is your heating bill, 300 bucks?