What is "rich"?

[Torie]

200K per year parses out to about 4-5 million in net worth more or less exclusive of personal residence. However that is eroded by inflation, so to maintain the status quo in real dollars, one needs closer to 6-7 million, or one needs to buy an annuity.

The decrepit progenitors are slumlords, Torie.  The inflation hedge is built in.

$200K does not afford a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle in my zip code really, unless one does not have dependents other than maybe a spouse, and certainly not kids in college. $350K is more like it, whether from capital or compensation from sweat and toil, or both.

Yeah, I meant $200K in Sant Louie.

I am not sure why someone who has earned every penny they own honestly and ethically and has reached financial "critical mass" should be deemed some sort of "oppressor."  But I am confident Opebo that you will give me an at once cogent and arresting explanation for me to savor and ponder.

Well, sure.  The whole reason it is so desirable to get into that position is in order to oppress.  Once you have a certain 'position', legally defined - call it wealth, call it membership in an aristocracy, whatever, you receive by right a share of the production from the toils of your serfs.  In the middle ages it was a bit more obvious, as they were right outside stinking of dung, and even now my parents serfs can be visited easily (and must often be at the first of the month, the recalcitrant rednecks), but even in your post-modern case there are serfs somewhere serving you due to your investments.

The truth is that most such 'position' in our heirarchical society is not gained from earning but rather from past advantage, inheritance, etc.  You may have 'worked hard', Torie, but you come from a particular class.  It is seemly to admit this.

Opebo, be patient with me, but I am still confused as to why I am an "oppressor."  I grant you I was lucky in that I was born with brains to parents with a high level of education, who gave me a "free" and long and extensive education of my own, after which it was up to me to make with it what I was able or wanted, or was disciplined enough to achieve. I also had some luck along the way, although I was pretty careful to stack the odds in my favor when I could.

What I don't understand is that if I enter in contracts that also benefit what you describe as the "serfs" which not only they, but I, consider as benefiting them as well as me, and I engage in full disclosure and don't take advantage, and am honest in my dealings - all of them - why that kind of conduct label's me an oppressor, whereas if I did a minimum wage job, and just hung out, then I would not be an oppressor. I think indeed that the former conduct benefits the polity as a whole more than semi-vegetating.

I appreciate such  terms of "oppressor" and the "ruling class" are slung around like some high velocity Frisbee in some quarters as the coin of the realm, but I am struggling to give them some meaning, that has at least of modicum of practical as opposed to polemic use in the public square. To the extent that you can further enlighten me, and walk me through this, step by step, I would be most appreciate kind sir. I really will.

[opebo]

What I don't understand is that if I enter in contracts that also benefit what you describe as the "serfs" which not only they, but I, consider as benefiting them as well as me, and I engage in full disclosure and don't take advantage, and am honest in my dealings - all of them - why that kind of conduct label's me an oppressor, whereas if I did a minimum wage job, and just hung out, then I would not be an oppressor. I think indeed that the former conduct benefits the polity as a whole more than semi-vegetating.

Because there is an enormous power differential enforced by the State between you and your serfs, Torie.  That is why it is so enviable and desirable to be a rich.

I appreciate such  terms of "oppressor" and the "ruling class" are slung around like some high velocity Frisbee in some quarters as the coin of the realm, but I am struggling to give them some meaning, that has at least of modicum of practical as opposed to polemic use in the public square. To the extent that you can further enlighten me, and walk me through this, step by step, I would be most appreciate kind sir. I really will.

Yes, I'm uncomfortable with the term oppressor and the term ruling class, and prefer simply 'owning class'.  Oppression implies all sorts of things.. and as we've seen with Western European capitalism, it is possible to maintain the system but without severe brutality.  Violence is still inherent, but it is well masked and rarely used, unlike here in the US.  Ruling class is also a bit off simply because most owners take no individual involvement and show no individual volition political ('to rule').  No, its a system that is ruling, and yes, the owners are all beneficiaries, but its not as if they have any individual choices to make.  Least of all could they ever choose to upend the system.

No, I think 'owning class' is the best - as a class you have all the political power, and nearly all of the production of society.  Everything is run - at the point of the gun, by the state - for you and your benefit.  However you have no direct control over this as an 'individual' (perhaps the very concept of individual is a bit of a delusion). 

[Torie]

You seem uncomfortable with the concept of property rights Opebo.  Is that a fair inference on my part?  Once we get this little matter nailed down, perhaps we can explore this matter further.

[Citizen James]

I think most folks define "rich" as "making far more money that I am".  In general most people tend to think of themselves as being in the middle class.  It isn't uncommon for people in the top quartile or even top decile to see themselves as 'upper middle class' or even just middle class in general.   

Here in California median household income is a little under 60k, the top quartile starts at a little over 100k, and almost 6% of the population makes over 200k.

Nationally, median income is about 50k, the top quartile starts a little under 100k, and a little less than 5% of the population makes over 200k.

As far as politicians go, in the campaign President Obama defined rich as being in the top 3-4% of incomes, or over about 250k a year.   I pretty much agree with that assessment.  I do however agree that the cost of living should also be factored into tax rates (which it is to some extent through deductions) as some places are more expensive to live in than others.

I think in general, those who make more are not only better able to contribute more to the upkeep of society, but also benefit more from it.   Lack of crime, presence of roads, an educated populous, and so on are all highly conductive for the generation of both individual wealth and the common good.  If you depended on the free market to provide these things many of them would go ignored hoping that someone else would foot the bill.

[opebo]

You seem uncomfortable with the concept of property rights Opebo.  Is that a fair inference on my part?  Once we get this little matter nailed down, perhaps we can explore this matter further.

I'm not uncomfortable with them, I just understand them a little differently than you do.  Property rights are political privilege.

[Jacobtm]

When I talk about rich, I think having disposable income is pretty much it in America. Even people who make something like 30k a year can afford to have their own home, car, and really everything they need, with extra money left over, if they spend wisely.

If we look at Opebo's opressor/opressed dichotomy, even the "recalcitrant redneck" who shops exclusively at Wal-Mart is an "opressor" in that his "everyday low prices" come from the miniscule cost of labor in impoverished countries. The political power the lowliest American citizen has puts pretty much all of them, even those on welfare, on Opebo's "opressor" side of the equation, since the whole world fuels our cheap goods.

[opebo]

When I talk about rich, I think having disposable income is pretty much it in America. Even people who make something like 30k a year can afford to have their own home, car, and really everything they need, with extra money left over, if they spend wisely.

What the f?  on $30K/year you get about $2,000 a month after taxes.  A house payment in most areas is $1,000-1,500.. plus food, car payment, health car bills.  There's no way a $30K/year man can buy a house much less support a family.  Double that, maybe.

If we look at Opebo's opressor/opressed dichotomy, even the "recalcitrant redneck" who shops exclusively at Wal-Mart is an "opressor" in that his "everyday low prices" come from the miniscule cost of labor in impoverished countries. The political power the lowliest American citizen has puts pretty much all of them, even those on welfare, on Opebo's "opressor" side of the equation, since the whole world fuels our cheap goods.
[/quote]

No, that's wrong. 

[Jacobtm]

What the f?  on $30K/year you get about $2,000 a month after taxes.  A house payment in most areas is $1,000-1,500.. plus food, car payment, health car bills.  There's no way a $30K/year man can buy a house much less support a family.  Double that, maybe.

House payment is different than renting a place. I'm not saying $30k is enough to buy a house and start a middle-class family. But I've rented sh**tty places at rates of less than $300 a month. If you go shopping and buy your own food instead of eating out, you can easily get by on $200-$300 a month in food costs. Another $400 or so on bills if you're not in some very cold area & if you're not subscribed to nonsense television service. Then you've got $1,000 for your car and health, which isn't alot admittedly.

It's doable for a single person, not luxurious, not fun, but certainly livable. And of course, there's all the programs for the poor which supplement their income. Welfare etc. is part of the political privelege of being an American, which allows even the worst off among us to "exploit" poor laborers in other countries by shopping at Wal-Mart and buying cheap goods.

[opebo]

What the f?  on $30K/year you get about $2,000 a month after taxes.  A house payment in most areas is $1,000-1,500.. plus food, car payment, health car bills.  There's no way a $30K/year man can buy a house much less support a family.  Double that, maybe.

House payment is different than renting a place. I'm not saying $30k is enough to buy a house and start a middle-class family. But I've rented sh**tty places at rates of less than $300 a month. If you go shopping and buy your own food instead of eating out, you can easily get by on $200-$300 a month in food costs. Another $400 or so on bills if you're not in some very cold area & if you're not subscribed to nonsense television service. Then you've got $1,000 for your car and health, which isn't alot admittedly.

It's doable for a single person, not luxurious, not fun, but certainly livable. And of course, there's all the programs for the poor which supplement their income. Welfare etc. is part of the political privelege of being an American, which allows even the worst off among us to "exploit" poor laborers in other countries by shopping at Wal-Mart and buying cheap goods.

I'm not sure how big a factor are these 'cheap goods', anyway.  I mean, nearly all our income goes to housing, car, and food.  Cheap clothes are a small factor, but how often does one really buy consumer electronics?  (anyway the newer clothes fall apart quickly).

By the way, are you in Upstate NY?  Because even in St Louis there is no longer any place to live for $300/month.

[Jacobtm]

I'm not sure how big a factor are these 'cheap goods', anyway.  I mean, nearly all our income goes to housing, car, and food.  Cheap clothes are a small factor, but how often does one really buy consumer electronics?  (anyway the newer clothes fall apart quickly).

By the way, are you in Upstate NY?  Because even in St Louis there is no longer any place to live for $300/month.

Yea, Binghamton NY is where I go to school, I recently saw a 4 bedroom house rented to a couple with kids for $750 a month. My friends had lived there, and it wasn't bad at all, included a huge tv, furniture, a new fridge/microwave/oven etc.

It's not just expensive consumer electronics, it's furniture, toys, clothing, hygiene products, it's everything you buy routinely. And let's get serious, poor people have cell phones, tvs, computers, micowaves, videogames etc. It's not the difference between haves and have nots, it's the difference between a new Mac and an old Dell, or a good cell-phone plan and a pre-paid one.

Practically everything the poor buy from places like wal-mart is, in your terminology, subsidized by the political privelege they have of being an American and buying cheap goods from opressed workers abroad.

And those "opressed workers" are working in situations we wouldn't like, but compare their situation to 20 years ago, and they're making huge gains economically, as the meager wages we pay them for their labor translates in just a generation into a real middle class in countries like China and India, where the children of a simple factory worker go to school, get jobs that pay a little better, and now themselves become "opressors" in their country because they have some sort of decent wage.

Is there anyone in your definition who makes a good salary that isn't an opressor, or are you necessarily either poor or an oppressor?

[J. J.]

First, I would say a net positive income.  You can have a great deal of money and still have to spend most of it; a lot of small business owners fall into that group.  Second, liquidity at or above $1,000,000.

[Vepres]

What I don't understand is that if I enter in contracts that also benefit what you describe as the "serfs" which not only they, but I, consider as benefiting them as well as me, and I engage in full disclosure and don't take advantage, and am honest in my dealings - all of them - why that kind of conduct label's me an oppressor, whereas if I did a minimum wage job, and just hung out, then I would not be an oppressor. I think indeed that the former conduct benefits the polity as a whole more than semi-vegetating.

Because there is an enormous power differential enforced by the State between you and your serfs, Torie.  That is why it is so enviable and desirable to be a rich.

I appreciate such  terms of "oppressor" and the "ruling class" are slung around like some high velocity Frisbee in some quarters as the coin of the realm, but I am struggling to give them some meaning, that has at least of modicum of practical as opposed to polemic use in the public square. To the extent that you can further enlighten me, and walk me through this, step by step, I would be most appreciate kind sir. I really will.

Yes, I'm uncomfortable with the term oppressor and the term ruling class, and prefer simply 'owning class'.  Oppression implies all sorts of things.. and as we've seen with Western European capitalism, it is possible to maintain the system but without severe brutality.  Violence is still inherent, but it is well masked and rarely used, unlike here in the US.  Ruling class is also a bit off simply because most owners take no individual involvement and show no individual volition political ('to rule').  No, its a system that is ruling, and yes, the owners are all beneficiaries, but its not as if they have any individual choices to make.  Least of all could they ever choose to upend the system.

No, I think 'owning class' is the best - as a class you have all the political power, and nearly all of the production of society.  Everything is run - at the point of the gun, by the state - for you and your benefit.  However you have no direct control over this as an 'individual' (perhaps the very concept of individual is a bit of a delusion). 

Sorry, what!?! Since when were the rich protected by the state in recent US history? Rich people have fallen into poverty, and poor have gained immense wealth. There is nothing stopping you from becoming rich if you work hard, have the right attitude, and get yourself a good education.

You also seem to think property rights are oppressive. Save the homeless, everybody has some sort of property, be it a car, a house, or even a kitchen table.

That last thing about individuals doesn't even make sense. I am separate from you as you are from Torie and so forth.

[opebo]

Sorry, what!?! Since when were the rich protected by the state in recent US history? Rich people have fallen into poverty, and poor have gained immense wealth. There is nothing stopping you from becoming rich if you work hard, have the right attitude, and get yourself a good education.

Not so, Vapors.  As a class, the poor stay poor, and as a class, the rich stay rich - this is the function of the system of control in our society.  To say that in rare cases something different occurs does nothing to counter the claim that the function of society is to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

You also seem to think property rights are oppressive. Save the homeless, everybody has some sort of property, be it a car, a house, or even a kitchen table.

In a sense even 'owning' a kitchen table gives one the right of 'command' - one is empowered by the State to command others 'away from my kitchen table', this preserving it for ones own use alone.  However this ability to reserve items that may be used only by a single person or a few people (such as a family) is hardly the same as ownership over the 'productive capacity' of society.  The latter gives one the ability to command more than just the exclusion of his table, etc, but the power to actually tell people what to do upon penalty of death.

That last thing about individuals doesn't even make sense. I am separate from you as you are from Torie and so forth.

Sure, we're separate.. like the various bees in the hive are separate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When I talk about rich, I think having disposable income is pretty much it in America. Even people who make something like 30k a year can afford to have their own home, car, and really everything they need, with extra money left over, if they spend wisely.

They absolutely can't in the bay area.

[Jacobtm]

When I talk about rich, I think having disposable income is pretty much it in America. Even people who make something like 30k a year can afford to have their own home, car, and really everything they need, with extra money left over, if they spend wisely.

They absolutely can't in the bay area.

There are lots of areas that are too expensive for this, but your, presumably nice, part of the bay area isn't an accurate representation of the real estate market across the country, which is filled by people who make mediocre salaries like these, and somehow actually do live and get by.