this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
162 points (80.7% liked)

Canada

7187 readers
518 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Re: the title... Yeah no, owners of an expensive property are not only not in the "rich" class, they're likely working class as much as gig drivers and cashiers. Unless they liquidate this asset and actually go live somewhere LCOL where they can live off of the labour of others, they're still working class.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Exactly, articles like this are just confusing the meaning of class.

What makes you a member of "the working class" is that you are forced to sell your labour to survive. Fullstop. A tradesperson, and a lawyer, and a burgerflipper are all in the same class from that point of view.

As soon as your accumulated capital becomes large enough that you earn your income only as a result of your capital, then you are no longer working class, and that's when your interests diverge from the average worker and average homebuyer or renter.

A landlord with no other job, the major shareholders of a profitable business, a wealthy heir, those people make their money by siphoning value off of other people's work without actually needing to spend their time on work.

Long story short: I have no problem with a 50 year old plumber with a large family who legitimately uses that 4500 sqft house.

My issue is with Karen who used dad's money to buy 8 properties to airBnB them and insists she get special treatment because her business risks didn't pan out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

As soon as your accumulated capital becomes large enough that you earn your income only as a result of your capital, then you are no longer working class, and that’s when your interests diverge from the average worker and average homebuyer or renter.

Interestingly, almost everyone in government is a member of the capitalist class, largely because people that sell their labour can't afford the time, let alone the money, to run for office.

In case you wondered why the interests of labour are grossly underrepresented in government, despite that vast, vast majority of both citizens and voters being of the working class, this is why.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That is the point though, if like the article says l, 1/5th of owners have an investment property, they could sell it and still live in the current place and have a ton of cash. or sell both and move to a cheaper city and retire. Compared to people struggling to save for a mortgage in this crazy market.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

1/5th of owners have an investment property, they could sell it and still live in the current place and have a ton of cash

That's fair, and the article goes through a few key points that I agree with. The article title is just clickbait, but annoying because it's alienating. I don't think it makes sense to write a headline based on 1/5th of that group being land speculators.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick 4 points 11 months ago

"1/5 of Homeowners Refuse to Accept the Awkward Truth: They’re Rich"

Or

"Multi-property Homeowners Refuse to Accept the Awkward Truth: They’re Rich"

Or

"Multi-property owners Refuse to Accept the Awkward Truth: They’re Rich"

Or

"Landlords and Spectors Refuse to Accept the Awkward Truth: They’re Rich"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

It made us both click on it :)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

If you're dicing things up that way, there's no middle class in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

:-) the middle class is the subset of the working class that has no food insecurity but has a lot of social & image insecurity

But like the rest of the working class, the middle class is one or two tragedies away from becoming homeless and marginalized, despite the lack of awareness regarding so

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

That's as good a definition as any I guess.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There never has been. You either sell your body and labour, or own enough capital for it to self sustain, or at least be sustained by the labour class.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

If we're doing Marx, don't forget the petite bourgeoisie, who draw significant income from both. They were minor in Marx's day, partly because very little was publicly traded, but they're actually the wealthiest group by far now, taken as a whole.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Exactly, you're either a part of the working class or capitalist class

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Of course there is no middle class!