But some who has earned a penny in interest has spent time as both worker and owner.

I’m not talking about people who only make a small amount of interest or investment return over the course of their lifetimes. I’m talking about people who are already unambiguously middle class (between 25th and 75th percentile incomes), who end up relying on investment income to provide most of their retirement expenses.

I’m talking about people with half million dollar 401(k)s that return hundreds of thousands over the course of a retirement. Some of it is principal but most of it is gains/return/interest.

Basically if you’re able to retire in America, you’re an “owner” for those decades. Yes, there are people in America who can’t afford to retire, but most people in the middle class can.

Also, its not the conventional way. You 100% made that up and what you’re describing is petite bougouise.

Defining the middle class as middle incomes is pretty conventional. I think you’ve misunderstood my description of the middle class (people who fit the definition generally have income from both work and from investment) as a definition.

So let me be perfectly clear:

1. The American middle class, defined as those with middle incomes, earns significant amounts of money from both wages/salaries for their work and on return on their investments, especially in their primary home (with a 60+% homeownership rate) and retirement accounts (401(k)s, IRAs, 403(b)s, even multi employer or government pension funds that are paid for through investment in publicly traded securities).
2. The worker versus owner definition you proposed near the top of this thread is insufficient to describe class, because of the large, large number of people who rely on both and could not support their existing lifestyles without both.

And hey, I was gonna let it go but it’s clear your autocorrect has now adopted it as a new word it will happily let you spell wrong repeatedly: it’s spelled petit bourgeois, or petit bourgeoisie for plural.

The median net worth of a 65-year-old in the United States is about $390k, so the income it produces is generally a modest supplement to social security. At the 75th percentile, which is also generally considered middle class, net worth is about $1.1 million and easily enough to provide a comfortable retirement lifestyle.

The idea that someone is middle class because they’ve earned a penny in bank interest is absurd.

No, the idea is that the middle class (defined in the conventional way) spends time in both the “worker” category and the “owner” category.

The ordinary middle class pathway is to work for 30-50 years and then retire on their savings (or a defined contribution retirement plan) or to rely on a defined benefit pension fund that is itself invested in securities, aka capital. This is the baseline expectation of retirement planning for the middle class in the U.S.: the investments/savings provide the cash to live on, while ownership of the primary residence shields the retiree from certain housing costs, or can provide cash flow through a reverse mortgage.

Through the power of compounding, a 40+ year savings plan generally increases its value over time so that the vast majority of the value comes from return on investment rather than invested principal.

If you want specific calculations, we can do that to show that the typical middle class path takes in more than “a very small amount” in their retirement savings/investments.

Or are you planning on coming back with a load of caveats

These details are obvious from my first comment in this thread, that the middle class in the United States works its way into an “ownership class” in time for retirement, through savings/investment. That’s exactly what I meant in that comment, and spelling it out makes it pretty clear what I meant at that time, and that I haven’t shifted my position in this thread.

Its not my definition. Its a different school of thought that has stood up to scrutiny. It is different to what a lot of people would refer to as middle class and, of course, different again from what you, personally describe middle class to be.

I’m specifically pointing out the problem with the “how they earn income” definition, that it seemingly assumes that the two categories are mutually exclusive, to try to argue that there’s no such thing as a middle class They’re not. Most people who are in what most would recognize as “middle class” under the traditional definition get income through both methods, especially over the course of their lifetimes.

So even under that definition, which attempts to pretend there isn’t a middle class, there is still a middle class: those who have income through both methods, or even hybrid methods (ownership of an actively managed business that allows them to earn money while working but wouldn’t earn money without their own labor).

Middle class generally means people whose incomes are in the middle half (ranging from 40th to 60th percentile to the 20th to 80th).

If you want to pull out your own new definition based on whether their income comes from work or from return on investments, then I’d still point out there’s a large number of people who do both, especially when compared across the entire life cycle including retirement. So if you insist on this alternative definition, you still have to account for the big chunk of the population who do both.

If you work for your money, you’re part of the struggle. If you own for your money, you’re part of the problem.

But the middle class is those who are able to leverage working for their money to accumulate capital to where they can live off of the proceeds of that owned capital. If you’re able to retire, you eventually become part of the ownership class.

There is a shrinking middle class but the actual people in it are those who split their adult lives into eventually retiring on their wealth, accumulated through working.

deleted by creator

Unions are legal in all occupations.

One caveat: the legal protections of the right to unionize apply to non-supervisors. If you have people who report to you, your power to unionize is pretty limited.

There are also some specialized jobs that aren’t allowed to unionize by either federal or state law: actual soldiers in the Army, certain political jobs, etc.

But for the most part, if you are employed, you’re probably allowed to unionize (and protected against retaliation even in an unsuccessful union drive).

It feels so real in how disappointing the experience becomes for the straight characters.

This hits the nail on the head. It’s funny because of the point of view of the actual participants.

The funny thing about this thread is that there are so many comments essentially agreeing with the central premise of the sketch, that it’s relatable and disorienting when you stumble onto some kind of established fandom and can’t seem to keep up with why it’s popular or what is or isn’t “part of it.” The popularity is confusing in itself, and the need to dissect the lore (as OP is doing, perhaps even unintentionally following the sketch itself) distracts from the original purpose of going there to be entertained.

In other words, the sketch is funny and relatable exactly for the same reasons why much of the audience doesn’t find it funny and relatable.

If Republicans are that scared of turnout, they could legislatively overturn their own abortion ban.

The filibuster makes a big difference when the president, the speaker of the house, a majority of the House, and between 50-59 senators all support something.

If you don’t have all of those others lined up, the filibuster isn’t the only hurdle.

For example, Biden hasn’t been president during a Democratic-controlled House, so everything he’s accomplished legislatively has been with the support of either Kevin McCarthy or Mike Johnson, who have been the critical veto point while he has been president.

Plus with only 51 Senators in the Democratic caucus (and 50 in the last Congress), getting 50 votes through Manchin and Sinema has been a challenge sometimes, too.

The last time the filibuster has mattered for a Democratic president in actual legislation was the 111th Congress, when Democrats last held a trifecta. The Democrats did abolish the filibuster for presidential appointments, which don’t go through the House, during the 113th Congress, when they controlled the White House and the Senate.

I think it’s pretty obvious that the filibuster is gone the next time it matters, the next time there’s same party control of all 3. It’s just that it’s better if it’s Democrats in control.

Yeah, you can think of it as a simple transaction fee for debit transactions, and a full blown credit and risk shifting system for credit transactions. The banks charge high fees for credit transactions because they’re actually lending money and bearing some credit risk for them, whereas the debit transactions are just moving money from one account to another.

This stuff takes a while to get going.

The FTC sued to stop Microsoft from acquiring Activision in December 2022, but lost.

DOJ sued Google in January 2023, and won their trial last month.

The FTC and DOJ started rulemaking on new merger disclosure and review requirements in June 2023.

The FTC sued Amazon in September 2023.

DOJ sued Ticketmaster/Live Nation in May 2024.

The last two years have shown aggressive antitrust enforcement for the first time in about 50 years, when Robert Bork basically convinced the Supreme Court and all Republicans to impose almost impossible standards for antitrust regulations.

I think this article misleadingly states what the stats show.

Each American generation is less religious than the older generations, and Gen Z is no different. It’s just that Gen Z women are far less religious than previous generations, a bigger gap than the men. From the study that provides the underlying stats:

What’s remarkable is how much larger the generational differences are among women than men. Gen Z men are only 11-points more religiously unaffiliated than Baby Boomer men, but the gap among women is almost two and a half times as large. Thirty-nine percent of Gen Z women are unaffiliated compared to only 14 percent of Baby Boomer women.

In other words, Gen Z men are less religious than Boomer men. This basic conclusion doesn’t seem to come through in the original article, which almost suggests that young men are more religious than older generations.

The kinetic energy in that stardust, and the gravitational potential energy of stardust pulling itself into tighter balls, doesn’t necessarily come from fusion. There’s all sorts of cosmological forces and energy out there, and I don’t think they all trace back to nucleii smushing together.

So is biomass. And wind. And fossil fuels. And hydro.

In fact, I think only geothermal and fission aren’t fusion-based.

Nader 2004: 465,650

Nader wasn’t even the Green candidate in 2004. Nader ran as an independent in 2004.

That year the Green Party ran David Cobb, who got 119,859 votes, putting him behind the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the independent Ralph Nader.

In 2008, Nader ran again as an independent and beat the Green Party once again, with 739,034 votes, versus McKinney’s 162k. In between were the Libertarians in fourth place, and the Constitution Party in fifth place.

The Green Party has never even come in third place, and several times hasn’t even come in fifth place, in our two party system.

Racists would pay quite a bit of money to be able to target certain ethnic groups.

Why do you care if the person you voted for wins?

Because it’s an election with consequences, not an online fandom.

She absolutely is a trash person. I agree. I’m not defending her to be clear.

People who let their dogs off leash in public are assholes and deserved to be confronted and shamed. She was a piece of shit well before their conversation started.

to the downvote brigade I highly recommend go watch the full video and decide for yourself

Yeah it’s obvious she’s weaponizing the police against a guy who she doesn’t like, by knowingly playing directly into the “police will overreact against a black guy” card, and faking panic in her voice. This is violent escalation to a non-violent situation. The faked panic is straight up sociopathic.

People who don’t leash their dogs are assholes, and his response to that was relatively tame.

I don’t see how you can watch this and respond the way you have, unless you’re also the type of asshole who feels entitled to walk dogs without leashes, or generally dislike black people, or are completely oblivious to the social context in which police in New York interact with black people.