Moore's Sicko

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I know many professionals in the top 1% who still have to work, at least by their personal standards. They do tend to retire early though.

To continue to live at their current level, yes. But most of them could probably quit their jobs and live like the rest of society on their accumulated wealth.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What ****ing professional makes 350k a year and hasn't saved up a fairly tidy sum?

A tidy sum that's still often a fraction of their actual salary.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
To continue to live at their current level, yes. But most of them could probably quit their jobs and live like the rest of society on their accumulated wealth.

But that criterion doesn't really make sense. Plenty of upper-middle-class people (by your criteria) could do the same at a marginal or better standard of living.

The capitalist can retire and maintain basically the same material standard of living.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That ignores the fact that most* of those at 350k+ could probably live off of their savings (retire early) but only at a cost to [material] standard of living, and usually choose to keep working into their 50's or 60's.

* let it be understood for the rest of this thread that I'm still referring to professionals - not top executives, stars, capitalists, etc.

Errr...did you not read my post?

I'm not saying that salary is not perhaps the most important part of their income. I'm saying that to survive at a reasonable level, they don't need to work. Now compare with the suburban family of 4 pulling down 100k. How long could dad be out of his job before the kids started going hungry?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Errr...did you not read my post?

That was supposed to be quoting Kid's post

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


But that criterion doesn't really make sense. Plenty of upper-middle-class people (by your criteria) could do the same at a marginal or better standard of living.

Uhhh...no. My parents made between 70 and 90 k for most of the years I lived with them. After 20 years at that sort of income level they owned the house they lived in (mod 50k left on the mortgage) and 2 cars. At that income level they were at or above 85% (bear in mind inflation etc). That is upper middle class. Making 280k a year, having 700k in real estate outside your primary residence and 200k in the stock market doesn't even come close to comparing.

The capitalist can retire and maintain basically the same material standard of living.

The pure capitalist, yes. But the idea of the upper class as the leisure class is outdated.

[Kuciwalker]

The pure capitalist, yes. But the idea of the upper class as the leisure class is outdated.

Why?

[KrazyHorse]

The more I think about it, the more I like my definition.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That ignores the fact that most* of those at 350k+ could probably live off of their savings (retire early) but only at a cost to [material] standard of living, and usually choose to keep working into their 50's or 60's.

* let it be understood for the rest of this thread that I'm still referring to professionals - not top executives, stars, capitalists, etc.

edit: somehow I quoted KH's post instead of Kid's

Not really. The key is that the upper middle class in that situation would have to reduce their standard of living, and upper class never have to worry about that.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The pure capitalist, yes. But the idea of the upper class as the leisure class is outdated.

Why?

Because of the growth of the class of highly paid professionals who live at a standard comparable with that of a large part of the pure capitalist class.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Not really. The key is that the upper middle class in that situation would have to reduce their standard of living, and upper class never have to worry about that.

Er, that's my point. Plenty making over 350k would have to reduce their material standard of living to stop working.

[KrazyHorse]

Really, the partner at a law firm pulling in 350k has far more in common with the inheritor of a medium sized company making the same amount than he does with the middle management drone making 65 or 70k...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because of the growth of the class of highly paid professionals who live at a standard comparable with that of a large part of the pure capitalist class.

Are those highly paid professionals more sociologically and economically similar to the capitalist class* or the traditional upper middle class?

* I would consider high-level executives to be in this class

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Er, that's my point. Plenty making over 350k would have to reduce their material standard of living to stop working.

My point is that's a poor standard.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Really, the partner at a law firm pulling in 350k has far more in common with the inheritor of a medium sized company making the same amount than he does with the middle management drone making 65 or 70k...

All three people have very little in common probably.